BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Deepak Jain son of Sh. S.P. Jain, resident of House No.93, Sector 16, Panchkula.

….…Complainant

                            V E R S U S

1.  Spice Communication Limited, C-105, Industrial Area, Phase VII, Mohali, Punjab through its Sales Manager.

2.  M/s Harbans Singh and sons, SCO 1004 (Basement), Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.

3.  Cyber Electronics (India) SCO, 170, 1^st Floor, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh through Sh. Varinder Singh.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM:        SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

              MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

Argued by:       Complainant in person

Sh.Vishal Gupta, Adv. for OP-1

OPs 2 & 3 exparte.

PER MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

             The instant complaint has been filed by Shri Deepak Jain against Spice Communication and others under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

              The complainant had purchased a spice handset (Model C-810) from OP-2 on 16.1.2009 for Rs.5,990/-. The mobile set was not working properly and despite various visits of the complainant to the office of OP-3 the handset remained unrepaired. The handset at present is still lying with OP-3 since they have stated that it is beyond repair. The complainant has thus filed the instant complaint with a prayer for replacement of the handset alongwith compensation for harassment.

2.        OP-1 in their written statement has stated that they are not the manufacturers of the mobile handset in question. The manufacturer of the mobile handset is Spice Mobile Ltd. and not Spice Communication Ltd. i.e. the OP. They have prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them since they have nothing to do with the case.
3.        OPs 2 & 3 did not appear despite due service, hence they were proceeded against exparte.
4.        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.        We have heard the complainant in person, ld. counsel for OP-1 and have also perused the record. 
6.        The contention of the complainant against the OPs is that the handset bought by him is not working properly, hence it needs to be replaced.  The handset at present is also not in his possession. OP-2 is the seller of the handset and OP-3 is the service center in whose possession the handset is lying at present.  None of these parties have put in appearance before this Forum to say anything in their defence.
7.        The ld. counsel for OP-1 has contended that they are not the manufacturers of the mobile set, hence no case is made out against them.  We are also in agreement with the contentions of OP-1, hence the complaint against them needs dismissal.
8.        It is well settled that the dealer is also liable for the acts of the manufacturer.  Hence, OPs 2 & 3 are as liable as the manufacturer of the handset, and need to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by him.
9.        In view of the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed in favour of the complainant with the following directions :-

a)  OPs 2 & 3 will be jointly liable to pay Rs.5,990/- (i.e. the cost of the handset) to the complainant.

b)  OPs 2 & 3 will further pay to the complainant Rs.1,500/- as compensation for harassment caused to him and Rs.1,100/- as costs of litigation.

c)  The complaint against OP-1 is dismissed with no order as to costs. 

10. This order be complied with by the OPs 2 & 3 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy failing which they shall pay the aforesaid amount with penal interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till the actual payment to the complainant.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.