BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 20 of 2015
Date of Institution : 23.1.2015
Date of decision : 3.10.2016
Parshant Gupta (aged about 33 years) son of Sh. Satish Gupta, C/o Gupta Chashma Ghar, Suratgaria Bazar, Sirsa, Tehsil & District Sirsa. ……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Shree Satyam Mobiles, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa through its proprietor/ manager/ authorized signatory.
2. Shree Sai Enterprises, Bishnoi Market, Shop No.66, 1st Floor, Hisar through its proprietor/ manager/ authorized signatory.
3. Ingram Micro India Ltd. 5th Floor, B-Block, Godraj IT Park, LVS Road, Vikhroli, West Mumbai- 400079 through Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.
4. MPS Telecom Pvt. Ltd., 702A, Arunachal Building, 19 Barakhamba Road, Connaught Palace, New Delhi- 110001 through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.
...…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.Ravinder Monga, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. N.K.Daroliya, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Sh. J.N. Monga, Advocate for the opposite party no.2.
Opposite parties No.3 & 4 exparte.
ORDER
Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant had purchased a mobile phone HTC Desire 816 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.23,100/- vide bill No.68120 dated 17.6.2014 for his wife. There was problem of network and Wi-Fi on the very first day of purchase of said mobile. The complainant immediately approached op no.1 who after minutely inspection advised him to use it for few days and stated that if trouble will remain then mobile would be sent to care centre but the mobile set worked only for few days. Then op no.1 advised to contact with op no.2 for removing the defect. The complainant lodged complaints on 7.10.2014, 3.11.2014 and on 9.12.2014 but no fruitful result ever received from the side of ops and ultimately the complainant started to lodge complaints with the ops through online. The mobile of the complainant was sent to manufacturing company for thrice for removing the defects but every time the mobile set was returned back with new problem. As per the record when for the second time the mobile set was sent for removing the manufacturing defect and when it was received back, the complainant was shocked to see the negligence, carelessness and rough-tough handling of the ops. The mobile set was having cracks on the body and scratches on the screen. The complainant refused to receive the mobile set in a such unbearable condition from the care centre upon which incharge of the care centre advised to contact with manufacturing unit online upon which it was advised to send the set back and they will replace the entire body alongwith screen. However, when the mobile set was received for the third time, it was in same condition due to manufacturing defect. Then the manufacturing company assured the complainant through e-mails that his mobile would be replaced with new one and complainant kept on waiting for the same for several days but to no effect. The complainant has suffered a lot of harassment at the hands of ops. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement. It has been averred that fault/defect can occur in the mobile due to non-use of same according to instructions and several other reasons. It is denied that networking wi-fi problem occurred in set due to any manufacturing defect or any default on the part of answering op, hence op no.1 is not liable to replace or repair the set. If there is any fault, the same could be detected and removed by authorized centre only. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 appeared through counsel but did not file reply despite availing several opportunities and ultimately, its defence was struck off.
4. None appeared on behalf of ops No.3 & 4 despite issuance of summons through registered covers and were proceeded against exparte.
5. By way of evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10. On the other hand, op no.1 tendered affidavit Ex.R1.
6. It has been established on record that complainant had purchased a mobile HTC desire 816 for a sum of Rs.23,100/- from opposite party no.1 on 17.6.2014 as is evident from copy of bill dated 17.6.2014 Ex.C2. From the service reports dated 10.7.2014 and 12.9.2014 Ex.C4 and Ex.C5, it is evident that mobile developed certain defects of camera and network problem etc. during the warranty period and set was repaired for two/ three times. It has been established by the complainant that despite the repair, the mobile in question did not work properly rather opposite parties sent the mobile in question with cracks on the body and scratches of the screen and upon his refusal to receive the mobile set in question in such a condition, the ops assured the complainant to provide a new mobile but till today he has not received the same from the ops and the old mobile is also lying with them. The complainant has placed on file various e-mails Ex.C6 to Ex.C8 in this regard and after filing of the present complaint on 23.1.2015, the manufacturing company vide its e-mail dated 8.6.2015 has offered that against dead on arrival certificate, the complainant can take box pack replacement from retailer and e-mail in this regard is placed on file as Ex.C9. From the act and conduct of the opposite parties, it is clear that complainant or his wife has been deprived from using the mobile without any defect despite investing huge amount of Rs.23,100/- for purchasing the said mobile. So, the complainant is entitled to replacement of mobile with new one besides compensation and litigation expenses.
7. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to provide a new mobile set of the same description or mobile set of the equivalent value of Rs.23,100/- to the complainant. We also direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant for his harassment and also Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order should be complied by the opposite parties jointly and severally within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under section 25/27 of the Act against the ops. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:3.10.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
