BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 178 of 2014                                                                         

                                                         Date of Institution         :    18.12.2014

                                                          Date of decision   :    12.1.2017

Balkishan Ji Gupta, Advocate son of Shri Mool Chand, resident of Gali Punjab National Bank Wali, Rori Bazar, Sirsa.                                                                                                                                                ……Complainant.

                                      Versus.

1. Shree Satyam Mobiles, through its Prop./ Partners/ Authorised persons, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

2. Nokia Care, c/o Sachdeva Sales Corporation Behind LIC Building, Old Civil Hospital Complex, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.  

3. Nokia India Private Limited, SP Infocity, Industrial Plot No.243, Udyog Vihar, Phase 1, Dundahera, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122016 India.

 ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT

                   SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………… ……MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.D.L.Gupta,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. N.K.Daroliya, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.

                   Opposite parties No.2 & 3 exparte.

ORDER

          Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant purchased one mobile set make Nokia model 501 for a sum of Rs.5000/- from opposite party no.1 vide bill No.48757 dated 23.7.2013 with guarantee of one year. Just after short time of purchase of mobile, he was shocked to detect the problem in the software of the mobile upon which he approached op no.1 and complained off the defects therein. The op no.1 checked the mobile and after being fully satisfied that there is defect in the mobile put off the complainant saying that he will get replaced the mobile set and asked him to visit within 10 days. After lapse of said period, complainant approached op no.1 and demanded the replaced mobile from him but he put off him by simply saying that replacement has not been got made from company and also assured that within 4/5 days he will give fresh mobile to him. After lapse of that period, when complainant again approached op no.1, he handed over the same mobile after repair but complainant was again shocked to detect that IMEI software/ number of mobile has been removed, on account of which mobile of complainant rendered as useless and a waste instrument. Thereafter, op no.1 forwarded the complainant at the customer care centre and op no.2 kept the mobile set with it making an assurance that as the defect in the mobile set has arisen within guarantee period, as such the company would redress his grievance. However, when after lapse of sufficient period, he approached op no.2, it openly refused to redress his grievance and misbehaved with him and defective mobile is still lying with ops. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement wherein sale of mobile in question to complainant has been admitted. It has also been submitted that op no.1 sells the product in a sealed/ packed condition as is received from manufacturing company through distributors. The complainant after the purchase of mobile set never approached the answering op and never complained about the alleged defects in the mobile set. Remaining averments of the complaint have also been denied.

3.                Ops no.2 & 3 did not appear despite issuance of notices through registered covers and service of op no.2 through acknowledgment and therefore, they were proceeded exparte.

4.                By way of evidence, complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.CW2 and copy of service job sheet Ex.CW3. On the other hand, op no.1 tendered affidavit Ex.R1.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.                The case of the complainant is that just after short time of the purchase of mobile set, he faced problem in the mobile purchased from opposite party no.1 and he has made various rounds to the opposite parties for redressal of his grievance but to no effect and defective mobile is lying with the opposite parties. The op no.2 which is a service centre and op no.3 which is manufacturer of the mobile in question have not appeared to say anything rather they have opted to be proceeded against exparte. Therefore, we have no other option but to rely upon the case of the complainant that mobile is having defect.

7.                Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties either to provide a new mobile of the same price and description to the complainant or to refund the cost of the mobile in question i.e. Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. All the ops are directed to comply this order jointly and severally. The defective mobile is already lying with ops. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                    President,

Dated: 12.1.2017.                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                                    Member.

                                    D.C.D.R.F.,

                                       Sirsa.