DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.208/02.12.2008 Decided on : 28.01.2009 Surinder Paul Gupta, Advocate S/o Sh. Narata Ram Gupta, resident of Gaushala Road, Opposite Indian Overseas Bank, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS 1.Shiva Communication, Gurdwara Chowk, Mansa. 2.Spice Mobile, B-1, Sector-3, Noida.. ..... Opposite Parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Complainant in person. Opposite Parties exparte. Before: Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. This complaint has been filed, by Surinder Paul Gupta, Advocate son of Sh.Narata Ram Gupta, resident of Gaushala Road, Opposite Indian Overseas Bank, Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), against M/s Shiva Communication, Mansa, and M/s Spice Mobile, B-1, Sector-3, Noida, on the averments, which may briefly be described as under: 2. That the complainant, purchased a mobile set, from OP No.1 for a consideration of Rs.8,000/-, about 6-7 months prior to the date Contd........2 : 2 : of filing of the instant complaint, as such, he is consumer, under the opposite parties, qua the said mobile set, manufactured by OP No.2. The OP No.1, who is dealer of the OP No.2, did not supply the bill, to the complainant. The mobile set of the complainant, did not function properly, as such, he delivered the same, to OP No.1, for removal of defect, if any. After retaining the mobile set, for a period of about 20 days, OP No.1 returned the mobile set, to the complainant, claiming that defect, has been rectified. However, as the complainant inserted two sim cards, the mobile set again stopped functioning. It works only with one sim card, as such, there is some manufacturing defect, in the said instrument and is deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant deals with legal cases of several departments including , Punjab State Electricity Board. He has suffered huge loss, in his profession due to non functioning of his mobile set and, has spent a sum of Rs.3,000/-, for purchase of another mobile set and, has been subjected, to mental and physical harassment. At the end a prayer, has been made that the opposite parties, may be directed, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-, on account of compensation, in addition to costs of mobile set paid by him, and another sum of Rs.5,000/-, as compensation and equal amount as costs. 3. Notice of the complaint was given, to the opposite parties, but they failed to put in appearance, inspite of service, as such, they were proceeded against exparte. 4. In exparte evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ext.C-1 and copies of documents Ext.C-2 to C-4, including photographs and receipt, issued by OP No.1 before he closed his evidence. 5. We have heard the complainant and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by him, carefully, with his kind assistance. 6. In his affidavit Ext.C-1, the complainant, has reiterated all the allegations made in the complaint, on solemn affirmation, in the verbatim. Contd........3 : 3 : He has also produced, on record, copies of photographs, of the mobile set Ext.C-2 and C-3 and copy of receipt dated 13.12.2008, Ext.C-4, issued by, the proprietor of OP No.1, regarding deposit of his mobile set along with battery for the purpose of repair. The above said oral and documentary evidence, produced on record, by the complainant, has gone uncontroverted, as none of the opposite parties, has come forward to contest the complaint. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we have no option, but to hold, that complainant is 'consumer', under the opposite parties, qua the mobile set purchased by him, from them, in the sum of Rs.8,000/-, and there is deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties. In our opinion, replacement of the old mobile set, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would not be adequate relief, and no purpose, would be served, by giving direction, to the opposite parties, to repair the mobile set, supplied to the complainant, as they have failed to rectify the defect inspite the fact that the same remained deposited with the OP No.1, for a period of 20 days. Since, there is manufacturing defect, in the mobile set, purchased by the complainant. therefore, OP No.2, being manufacturer, is also liable along with OP No.1, who is dealer of the mobile set. The complainant also deserves, to be compensated, in the sum of Rs.1,000/-, on account of harassment and equal amount on account of costs incurred by him, for filing the complaint. 8. Resultantly, we accept the complaint and direct the opposite parties, to refund a sum of Rs.8,000/-, to the complainant, paid by him for the purchase of the mobile set, and to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/-, on account of compensation for mental and physical harassment and equal amount on account of costs. 9. The liability of the opposite parties to pay the amount of compensation would be joint and several. The opposite parties, are directed, to pay the above said amounts, within a period of two months, Contd........4 : 4 : from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 10. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 28.01.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
