BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 40 of 2014
Date of Institution : 21.3.2014
Date of Decision : 28.9.2015
Ajay Bishnoi son of Shri Krishan Lal, resident of V.P.O. Burj Bhangu, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Satyam Mobiles, Authorized Company show-room Through its authorized Incharge, Near Chandan Cake House, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa.
- Lali Mobile Care Centre, Through its Incharge/authorized person, Authorized Partner, Redignton India Limited, Bathinda, Now at Unitech # 6384/2481, Banegi House Street, Mehnagar, Near Old Bus Stand, Bathinda-151001.
- Bright Point India Private Limited, B-92, 9th Floor, Himalaya House, 23 K.G.Marg, New Delhi-110001.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT.GURPREET KAUR GILL ……PRESIDING MEMBER.
SHRI RAJIV MEHTA ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Udey Pal Bishnoi, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. N.K.Daroliya, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Opposite parties no.2 & 3 exparte vide order dated 4.9.2014.
ORDER
In brief the complainant had purchased one mobile hand set make HTC Desire VT 328 W bearing IMEI No. 352795053924774 Battery No. MT28YPG00156 T.C.No. 99HRT019 from the respondent no. 1 against cash amount of Rs, 16,200/- vide Invoice No. 35954 dated 12.11.2012. At that time of purchase of above mobile the respondent no. 1, assured the complainant that the company has given guarantee/warrantee of one year for any manufacturing defect in the mobile set.
2. After a period of few months, the mobile set automatically switched off and on and besides this, there is voice problem and the Touch screen display of the mobile set is not working properly. Media Player of the mobile set is also not working. The complainant approached respondent no. 1, about these major defects of the mobile set. The Op No. 1 checked the display and found that it was out of order due to manufacturing defect. He forwarded the complainant to the respondent no. 2, when the complainant approached to the respondent no. 2, and complained about the defects in the mobile set, the respondent no. 2 took the said mobile set from the complainant vide Job sheet No. 1963 dated 14.12.2012. The respondent assured the complainant either the mobile set will be repaired or the same would be replaced with new one after 15 days.
3. After some time, the respondent handed over the mobile set to the complainant saying that the set is in O.K. condition. But on use the same problem had created in the mobile set. The complainant again approached the respondent no. 2 and demanded the new set because the manufacturing defect in the mobile set could not be removed for the best efforts by the respondents. The complainant took more than hundred rounds to the respondents no. 1 and 2, but all in vain.
4. Hence the complaint has filed the complainant praying that his complaint be accepted with costs. The Ops be directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one. The complainant has also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and harassment.
5. The OP No. 1 appeared and filed its written statement and has admitted that the complainant has purchased the mobile set from the OP No. 1 vide bill No, 35954 dated 12.11.2012. It has been contended that it is the responsibility of the OPs No. 2 and 3 authorized service centre and manufacturing company to repair and replace the mobile and that duty of OP No. 1 is simply to sell the mobile of the company. When the complainant had approached the OP No. 1, the OP No. 1 had sent him to OP no. 2 and the hand set was delivered by the complainant to the Op no. 2 of his own and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no. 1 and the complainant is not entitled to recover any amount from the OP No. 1. It was the warranty of the company.
6. The OP No. 2 authorized customer care centre of the company and the Op no. 3, manufacturing company did not appear before this Forum. Hence the Ops no. 2 and 3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.9.2014.
7. The parties have led evidence in the form of affidavits and documents. The complainant has tendered Ex.C1-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C2- cash memo; Ex.C3 to Ex. C8-HTC Care Service Reports; Ex.C9-legal notice; Ex. C10- postal card; Ex. C11 to Ex. C13-postal receipts, whereas, OP has tendered Ex.R1-affidavit of Renu Gupta, prop. of Satyam Mobiles.
8. We have gone through the pleadings and documents of the parties very carefully. There is no dispute between the parties, the complainant had purchased a mobile from the respondent no. 1 for Rs. 16,200/- on dated 12.11.2012. It is very clear that the mobile of the complainant had become out of order within few months of the purchase. When the complainant approached the Ops the same was found within the warranty period as it is clear from the job sheets. The OP No. 1 is simply as dealer to sell the mobile and it is the responsibility of OP No. 2 customer care centre and OP No. 3 manufacturing company, to repair or replace the mobile. The mobile is not working properly. The complainant suffers unnecessarily harassment. The mobile set stop working within the warranty period. It was the duty of the OP No. 2 and 3 under the warranty that they should repair or they should replace it.
9. For the reasons and findings record above, we accept the complaint of the complainant with cost of Rs. 2000/- and direct the Ops no. 1 to 3, jointly and severally to replace the mobile set with new one defect free set of same description and if the same model is not available then to refund the price of the set i.e. Rs. 16,200/- within one month from today failing which complainant will be entitled to file the proceeding against the Ops under Section 25 & 27 of Consumer Protection Act. A Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated: 28.9.2015. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Ajay Bishnoi Vs. Satyam Mobiles
Present: Sh.Udey Pal Bishnoi, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. N.K.Daroliya, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Opposite parties no.2 & 3 exparte vide order dated 4.9.2014.
Arguments heard. For orders to come up on 28.9.2015.
Member Presiding Member,
DCDRF,Sirsa.
22.9.2015
Present: Sh.Udey Pal Bishnoi, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. N.K.Daroliya, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Opposite parties no.2 & 3 exparte vide order dated 4.9.2014.
Order announced. Vide separate order of even date, complaint has been allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:28.9.2015. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
