Punjab

Sangrur

CC/216/2015

Gurbachan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Singla Mobile Care - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S.Shergill

24 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    216

                                                Instituted on:      20.04.2015

                                                Decided on:       24.08.2015

 

 

 

Gurbachan Singh son of Late Shri Hardev Singh, resident of Village Kular Khurd, Tehsil Sangrur, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.             Singla Mobile Care, Near Samadh Baba Pir, Sangrur Road, Bhawanigarh through its Proprietor.

2.             HTC India Pvt. Ltd. G-4, BPTP Park Avenue, Near NH-8, Sector 38, Gurgaon through its M.D.

3.             MPS Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 702-A, Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001 through its authorised signatory.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :               Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.

For OP No.1              :               Shri S.S.Ratol, Adv.

For OP No.2&3         :               Exparte.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Gurbachan Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one  HTC mobile phone Desire 500 Duel Sim from OP number 1 for an amount of Rs.18,500/- vide bill number 2270 dated 30.4.2014 which was having one year warranty.  It is further averred that in the month of January, 2015, the mobile set in question started to create the problem of hanging as well as discharge of battery and as such the complainant approached OP number 1 immediately, who removed some data of the mobile phone and told that the same is due to excess data.  However, the complainant was approached to approach the service centre at Patiala.  It is further stated that on the insistence of the complainant, OP number 1 took the mobile set with him for getting the same repaired from Patiala and after a period of 15 days the complainant approached OP number 1, but the OP number 1 told that the set has not been received back. It is further stated that in the first week of February, the mobile set was given to the complainant, but with the same problem.  It is further stated that on 25.3.2015, the complainant went to the service centre of OP number 1 and handed over the mobile set for repairs.  It is further stated that after checking the mobile set, it was told by the employees of service centre that there is some major problem in the mobile set and advised the complainant to go to Chandigarh for repairs of the same. As such, the officials of service centre kept the mobile set with them for repairs and thereafter on 1.4.2015 the complainant visited the service centre at Patiala where the mobile phone was handed over to the complainant, but the mobile set in question was having similar problems.  On 5.4.2015 the complainant sent the email to OP number 2 for removal of the defects and OP number 2 vide email dated 6.4.2015 asked the complainant to do the certain steps for the removal of the defect, but all in vain.  The complainant also got checked the mobile set in question from mobile engineer namely Mr. Kamalpreet Singh, who after check up confirmed the complainant that the mobile set is having manufacturing defects and are not curable.  Thus, alleging  deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the defective mobile set with a new one or to refund the amount of Rs.18,500/- with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that Ops number 2 and 3 did not appear despite service, as such Ops number 2 and 3 were proceeded exparte on 29.5.2015.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OPs into uncalled litigation, the complainant has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands.  On merits, the sale and purchase of the mobile set in question has been admitted. However, it is stated that the warranty was given as per manufacture service manual.  The service centre was to open by OP number 2 and not by the OP number 1.  It is further stated that in the month of January, 2015 the complainant approached the OP with the alleged defect and the OP number 1 advised the complainant to approach the service centre at Patiala to get the mobile set in question repaired.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of certificate, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7 copies of e-mails, Ex.C-8 copy of bill dated 30.4.2014, Ex.C-9 copy of expert report, Ex.C-10 copy of warranty statement, Ex.C-11 affidavit of Kamalpreet Singh, Ex.C-12 affidavit of Gurbachan Singh and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit of Parneet Singla and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.               Ex.C-8 is a copy of the bill dated 30.04.2014 issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.18,500/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set and availed the services of the OP number 1. It is also admitted fact of the OP number 1 that the complainant approached him and he got the mobile set in question repaired from the service centre of OPs at Patiala.  Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-7 are the copies of emails exchanged between the complainant and the Ops regarding the defects in the mobile set in question. In the present case the case of the complainant is that the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant was having continuous problem of hanging and during the hanging of the mobile set no call can be accepted or dialled.  Further to support his contention, the complainant has also produced on record the report dated 16.4.2015 issued by Shri Kamalpreet Singh, wherein it has been clearly stated that on 14.4.2015, he checked the mobile in question for two days and found that the mobile set in question is having continuously hanging problem and due to hanging the screen of the mobile becomes black for long time and the battery back up is also very low.   Further to support his report, Shri Kamalprreet Singh has also filed his own sworn affidavit Ex.C-11, wherein he has clearly stated that the defects in the mobile set in question are not curable.  We may mention that the Ops number 2 and 3 remain to chose exparte and it is the only OP number 1, who has come forward to defend his case.  In the circumstances of the case, we feel that it is a case of supply of defective mobile set to the complainant, which cannot be repaired.   As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs number 2 and 3 to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.18,500/- being the cost of the mobile set, subject to returning of the mobile set in question along with all the accessories thereof by the complainant to OPs number 2 and 3.  OPs number 2 and 3 shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- in lieu of litigation expenses

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 24, 2015.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member