BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.137 of 2016
Date of Institution: 24.5.2016
Date of Decision: 24.5.2017
Kamal Kant son of Shri Om Parkash, resident of #13/173, M.C. Colony, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. Shree Satyam Mobiles, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, through its Authorized person/ Incharge/ Authorized Signatory of the said showroom.
2. Service Zone, Shop No.89, 1st Floor, Bishnoi Market, near Aggarsain Chowk, Sirsa.
3. Gionee Syntech Technology Pvt. Ltd, E-9, Block no.B-1, Ground Floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110044.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SMT. RAJNI GOYAT…………………PRESIDING MEMBER
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sanjay Mehta, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite parties No.2 & 3 exparte.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that he purchased one mobile set make Gionee E-7 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.17,500/- vide invoice No.85838 dated 12.5.2015 with guarantee/ warranty of one year. That just after few months of its purchase, the mobile started creating problem of heating, hanging, sound disturbance, auto shut off and start and also the problem of battery backup and its charging jack became out of function various times and mobile became useless. The complainant approached the op no.1 about the said problems and op no.1 on checking found it out of order due to manufacturing defect in the mobile, but op no.1 gave assurance that if he approaches op no.2, they would redress his grievance, hence the complainant approached the op no.2 on 4.1.2016 and lodged a complaint. The op no.2 retained the mobile set for 3-4 days and after some repair as well as installing the new software returned the same but the same problem occurred again and again. On 2.4.2016, the complainant again approached the op no.2 and the op no.2 again repaired the mobile set of complainant but the problem could not be removed out and the op no.2 asked the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile and further assured that he would get replaced the mobile from the company within a week and till now the complainant is making rounds to the ops but all in vain. He also got served a legal notice upon the ops but to no effect and now about three four days back, the ops refused to redress his grievance. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; suppression of material facts; that complainant is not the consumer of the ops; estoppal and mis joinder and non joinder of parties. On merits, while admitting the sale of the mobile in question to the complainant remaining contents of the complaint have been denied in toto. It has been submitted that manufacturer has provided the list of their authorized service centre which are being run under the control of manufacturing company for providing time to time services to the customers and they also advised to the customers to get his complaint redressed from the authorized service centre, meaning thereby the dealers after sale of mobile set on behalf of company has no interference between the customers and service centers. The answering op supplied the set in intact/ packed conditions without any kind of temperament with the sealed box. Further more, any mobile set could occur the fault/ defect due to non use according to instructions, due to causes beyond control of human being like lightening, abnormal voltage, act of God, improper testing, operation and maintenance etc.
3. Ops no.2 and 3 did not appear despite notice and therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.
4. In evidence, the complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of service job sheet dated 4.1.2016 Ex.C2, copy of job sheet Ex.C3, copy of legal notice Ex.C4. On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.1 made a statement that written statement filed on behalf of op no.1 may be read in evidence on behalf of op no.1.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. It is established on record that complainant purchased the mobile in question from opposite party no.1 on 12.5.2015 for a sum of Rs.17,500/- as is evident from copy of bill Ex.C1. However, there is nothing on record to prove manufacturing defect in the mobile in question. The complainant purchased the mobile in question on 12.5.2015 and has filed the present complaint on 24.5.2016 and has used the mobile in question for a considerable time, therefore, no case for replacement or refund of the amount is made out. Moreover, normal wear and tear in the mobile cannot be said manufacturing defect and the opposite parties are liable to remove defect, if any after repair as per warranty conditions.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to make the mobile in question defect free after necessary repairs without charging any amount from the complainant within a period of one month after receipt of mobile set for repairs, failing which the opposite parties will be liable to pay Rs.100/- per day as penalty to the complainant which would not exceed the cost of the mobile in question. The complainant is also directed to produce the mobile set in question to op no.2 within seven days of receipt of copy of this order and simultaneously inform in writing to ops No.1 and 3. This order should be complied by all the opposite parties jointly and severally. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:24.5.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
