BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Pawan Nanda, s/o Sh.K.K.Nanda, r/o#3365, Sector 15-D,  Chandigarh

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1]Salora International Limited, D-13/4, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi-110020 through Managing Director and others.

2]Salora International Limited, SCO 327, 2^nd Floor, Sector 40 D, Chandigarh through its Manager.

3]Standard Teletronics,SCO No.1049, Sector 22B, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

                                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA  MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Hitender Kansal, Adv.proxy for Sh.Paras Money                        Goyal, Adv. for complainant.

OPs ex-parte.

PER DR. (MRS) MADHU BEHL, MEMBER

             Succinctly put, the complainant on 26.06.08 purchased one Sony Ericson Mobile Set W580i bearing IME No.35243002-237572-2 for Rs.10,100/- from OP-3, manufactured by OP-1. At the time of purchase it was told to the complainant that the mobile set carries a warranty of one year from the date of its purchase. The complainant stated that from the day one only, the mobile set started giving minor problem and in the month of February, 09, the set developed major defects. The complainant immediately went to OP-3 for the rectification of the said defect, however OP-3 directed the complainant to go to OP-2(authorized workshop) for defect rectification. The complainant visited OP-2 and was told that the defect would be rectified as the set was within warranty.  On 16.02.09, the complainant brought the mobile set after defect rectification but shortly he again started facing the same problem as was faced earlier. The complainant again visited OP-2 and handed over the defective mobile set for rectification vide tag dt.13.03.09 and the complainant was assured to collect the set in the first week of April,09. The complainant received a call on 1.04.09 that the defect of the set is rectified and the same may be collected but third time also the complainant faced the same defect in the mobile set as was faced earlier by him. The complainant again visited the office of OP-2 but OP-2 did not issue the service tag to get the set repaired and now there is no positive response from the OPs to get the mobile set repaired/replaced. The set is still not working and lying with the complainant without its use. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has prayed that the present complaint may kindly be allowed and OPs be directed to refund the amount of the set along with costs of litigation and compensation towards harassment caused to the complainant.

2.      Notice was served to the OPs for written reply and evidence. None appeared on behalf of OPs, accordingly OPs proceeded against ex-parte.

3.      The complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

4.             We have heard the complainant and have also perused the record. 

5.           Annexure C-1 is the detailed invoice vide which the complainant on 26.06.08, purchased one Sony Ericson Mobile Set W580i bearing IME No.35243002-237572-2 for Rs.10,100/-  from OP-3(manufactured by OP-1). According to the complainant the mobile handset did not work well after it was purchased.  The case of the complainant brought on record annexure C-2 and C-3, the job sheet in the month of Feb, 09, the mobile set in question developed major defects and the complainant could not read the text or pictures on the display and even the key pad was not working.

6.           The act and conduct of OP-3 in not honouring the warranty while sale of the above said mobile and consequently not repairing the defective mobile set during the warranty period without any cost, amounts to deficiency in service.  In this  manner  it  is  evidently  clear  that  OP-2 is carrying out

service in a negligent and deficient manner, thereby causing

 harassment to the consumers, secondly the none-repairing of the defective mobile set during the warranty period surely amounts to deficiency in service because warranty is always given directly by the manufacturing company i.e OP-1. It is also liable to get the same repaired in case of any default within the specified period.  In the instant case since, the mobile set was purchased by the complainant on 26.06.08and it became defective just after few months of its purchase and its defect was not rectified by OP-2 during the warranty, which we feel OP-2 is duty bound to repair that without any charges.

7.           It appears that is why the OP intentionally did not appear after service and was proceeded against exparte, which shows that it has no defense to make against the complaint made by the complainant.

8.           So, in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case placed before us, we accept the complaint.  Accordingly, we direct OPs to rectify the defect of the mobile set and to return the same to the complainant by making it fully functional and to the satisfaction of the complainant, after necessary repairs, without any charges within the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. In the event the said mobile set in question seems to be non-functional/non-operational or defective in any way or it is not possible to repair it.  OPs shall replace it with the new mobile set of the same configuration within the aforesaid given period. We award costs of litigation of Rs.550/-, which shall be paid by the OPs within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @8% till its actual payment to the complainant.  Accordingly the complaint stands allowed in the aforesaid manner.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.