BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
Complaint Case No.23/2017.
Date of Instt.: 23.01.2017.
Date of Decision: 19.06.2017.
Parveen Sharma son of Sh.Duli Chan Sharma resident of Geeta Colony, Sirsa Road, Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
..Complainant
Versus
1.Shri Vishvkarma Mobiles Near Guru Nanak Kitab Ghar, Char Marla Colony, Fatehabad through its Prop.
2.Gionee India E-9, Block No.B-1, Ground Floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044, through its Director, Contact No.011-66784200.
..Opposite Parties.
Before: Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.
Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.
Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present: Sh.Parshant Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
None for Ops.
ORDER
Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (herein after to be referred as ‘OPs’).
2. Brief facts of the present complaint are that on 05.01.2016 the complainant had purchased a mobile Gionee Model S Plus Dark Blue bearing IMEI no.868702020072395 for a sum of Rs.17,000/- from R.K.Stickers and Mobile Shop, Palika Bazar, Fatehabad. The handset was having one year warranty. It has been further averred that the mobile in question worked properly for some days but thereafter it developed problems such as poor signal reception and hanging, therefore, the complainant took the mobile to OP No.1 which kept the same by issuing a job sheet. After few weeks the Op No.1 handed-over the repaired mobile to the complainant but it again went out of order as it shut down automatically and did not start again, therefore, the complainant again visited the OP No.1 who checked the mobile and kept the same with it and returned the same to the complainant after 25/30 days after changing the motherboard of the same. It has been further averred that the mobile phone worked properly for few months but it again creating problems such as network loss, hanging and auto on-off. Due to this the complainant again visited the OP No.1 where it had issued a job sheet dated 09.12.2016 and sent the mobile phone for repair work to the company and asked the complainant to visit 4/5 days later. When the complainant visited the Op No.1, he was advised to visit after some days as the mobile phone would take more time in repairing work. Thereafter, the complainant visited the Op No.1 time and again but it neither provide any alternate handset nor repaired the same, therefore, the complainant had to purchase a new mobile. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Annexure AW1/A and documents Annexure A1 to Annexure A3.
3. On notice, OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint of the complainant by fling joint reply wherein it has been submitted that the company provides one year warranty of the unit subject to some conditions and warranty of the unit becomes void in the following conditions:
1.Liquid logged/water logging
2.Physically damage.
3.Serial No. missing
4.Tampering
5.Mishandling/burnt etc.
The company is ready to repair the unit as per its policy because the warranty means only repair and not replacement. The system of the company runs through online and it recorded each and every entry but the complainant has never visited the service centre because no fresh record has been found in the system of the company as it runs online. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and the complainant has never been harassed. It has been further submitted that the OPs are ready to replace the handset of the complainant with another upgraded mobile despite the fact that the handset is running properly but under the garb of this complaint the complainant wants to grab money from the OPs. Other allegations made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. Objections about cause of action, maintainability, locus standi and concealment of material facts from this Forum etc. have also been taken. No evidence has been led on behalf of the OPs.
4. We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for complainant and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The complainant has come with the plea that the handset did not work properly during the warranty period and the same was deposited with the OP No.1 number of times but the OPs neither repaired the same nor refunded the cost thereof. During the proceedings of the complaint, Sh.Karambir Incharge/OP No.1 appeared and made a statement that the OPs are ready to replace the handset. It is not disputed that the mobile phone purchased by the complainant went out of order time and again therefore, the complainant had to approach the OP No.1 many a times and the mobile phone was also deposited with the service centre on many occasions as is evident through Annexure A2 and Annexure A3. The complainant had purchased the mobile phone on 05.01.2016 and lodged a complaint regarding non-working of the handset with the Op No.1 for the first on 26.09.2016 i.e. after using the handset for almost eight months. Since the complainant is not satisfied with the services of the OPs because it had been failed to redress his grievance, therefore, the end of justice would be met if the OPs are ordered to returned 2/3rd price of mobile. On this point reliance can be taken from case law titled as Accel Frontline Ltd. Vs. Anant Govind Kandeparkar I (2014) CPJ 51 (Goa) wherein it has been held by Hon’ble Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum that Goods – Mobile phone purchased – Defects – Frequent problems – Warranty period – Rectification not done – Replacement or refund of price sought – District Forum allowed complaint – Hence appeal – Complainant failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove any inherent defect or manufacturing defects – If mobile had any defect it would not have worked well for more than seven months – Board which is required to be replaced is not non to be available as mobile is outdated – Complainant used mobile for seven months so he is entitled to get refund of 2/3rd of price of mobile–Impugned order modified.
6. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund 2/3rd cost of the mobile to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization subject to depositing of the handset along with its accessories, if any, with the Ops. Order of this Forum be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Dated:19.06.2017
(Ansuya Bishnoi) (R.S.Panghal )
(Raghbir Singh) (Member) (Member)
Presiding Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal, Forum, Fatehabad.
