Haryana

Jind

CC/15/119

Joginder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Bala Ji Telecom Op 1 Spice Retial Ltd. Op 2 M/S Sonu Mobile Shop Op 3 - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Vinod Bansal

18 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 137 of 2015
   Date of Institution: 30.9.2015
   Date of final order:  18.7.2016

Joginder Singh son of Sumer Singh resident of house No.4559, Sector-11, Urban Estate, Jind.
                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
Shri Balaji Telecom, Gohana road near bus stand, Jind.
Spice Retail ltd. S, Global knowledge park, 19A & 19B Sector 125, Noida 201 301 (UP).
M/s Sonu Mobile shop, authorized dealer/service centre, shop No.9 (Basement) near Bharat Cinema, Batra Shopping Centre, Jhanj Gate, Jind.
                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
    Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. Pawan Dhillon Adv. for opposite party No.1.
          (defence already struck off)
          Sh. Satish Bhardwa Adv. for opposite party No.2. 
           (defence already struck off)
              Opposite party No.3 already ex-parte. 
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased Spice Mobile Set Model No.401 for a sum of Rs.3,000/- vide invoice No.330 dated 6.5.2014 from opposite party No.1.  The opposite party No.1 has given one year warranty of  the above said  mobile set. After three months of its purchase, the mobile set started
                  Joginder v/s Shri Balaji Telecom
                    …..2……
 giving trouble i.e  battery of mobile started overheating, mobile restarted again and again and battery backup become very short. The complainant visited the office of opposite party No.3 several times and requested to rectify the defect of the mobile set but the opposite party No.3 has not removed the defect of the mobile set. Since, 24.7.2015 the mobile set of the complainant is in the custody of the opposite parties and has not returned the same to him.  Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to  refund the cost of mobile i.e. Rs.3,000/- along with interest @24% p.a., a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony  as well as to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. 
2.   Notice issued to opposite party No.3 received back served but none has come present on behalf of opposite party No.3. Hence, the opposite party No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 10.11.2015. Reply of opposite parties No.1 and 2 not filed despite last opportunity. Hence, the defence of opposite parties no.1 and 2 was struck off vide order of this Forum dated 16.3.2016.
3.    In ex-parte evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Annexure C-1, copy of cash memo Annexure C-2 and copy of job sheet Annexure C-3 and closed the evidence. 
4.    We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of both the parties and perused the record placed on file. The complainant has purchased the mobile phone against a sum of Rs.3000/- on 6.5.2014 and the same
            Joginder v/s Shri Balaji Telecom
                    …..3……
 has started giving trouble after three months from its purchase. The Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that   after three months of  purchase, the mobile is  not working properly i.e battery overheating, phone restart, battery backup. The opposite party No.3 did not returned the mobile set since 24.7.2015.  
6.    On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.2 has argued that the mobile set having limited warranty and mobile having no manufacturing defect because the complainant has himself failed to file any expert opinion whether the mobile set having manufacturing defect and as such the complainant has failed to prove his case and prayed for dismissal of the case. 
7.    The Ld. counsel of the complainant has averred during arguments that the mobile phone was handed over to the opposite party No.3 it is still lying with opposite party No.3 and it is also confirmed from the documents job sheet Ex.C-3. It is also not disputed that the mobile set is within the warranty period but the mobile set could not be repaired. The mobile set is still lying with the opposite party No.3. It means the opposite parties have not rectified the mobile set within warranty period. It is the duty of the service center to rectify the problems arose in the mobile set but they did not do so. The evidence produced by the complainant goes un-rebutted. The opposite party No.3 was proceed ex-party and they did not bother to appear in this Forum. Opposite party No.1&2 appeared but the defence of the opposite party No 1&2 was struck off due to non filing the written statement within stipulated period.  

            Joginder v/s Shri Balaji Telecom
                …..4……
8.    Hence, in view of the above discussion we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties established. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to replace the mobile set with new one of the same model or refund the cost of the mobile phone amounting to Rs.3000/- within 30 days from the date of receiving the certified copy of the order as the mobile set is already in the possession of opposite party No.3. In case of failure, the opposite parties will pay a simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 30.9.2015 till its realization. The opposite parties will also pay a sum of Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The order be complianced within the stipulated period. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 18.7.2016

                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

                      Joginder Vs. Shri Balaji Telecom
                    
Present:  Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. Pawan Dhillon Adv. for opposite party No.1.
          (defence already struck off)
          Sh. Satish Bhardwa Adv. for opposite party No.2. 
           (defence already struck off)
              Opposite party No.3 already ex-parte. 

              Arguments heard. To come up on 18.7.2016 for orders. 
                                    President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  15.7.2016

Present:  Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for complainant.
              Sh. Pawan Dhillon Adv. for opposite party No.1.
          (defence already struck off)
          Sh. Satish Bhardwa Adv. for opposite party No.2. 
           (defence already struck off)
              Opposite party No.3 already ex-parte. 

         Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                          President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  18.7.2016