O R D E R
SUBHASH GUPTA, MEMBER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P. u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a mobile phone make MI-510, IMEI No.911319500024791 and No.911319500074895 on 31.10.2013 for a sum of Rs.9,500/- from the O.P-2. It is further alleged in the complaint that after the purchase of the said mobile phone it started giving trouble. It is stated that the camera of the mobile phone was not working at night and the mobile phone used to get heated and hanged. It is further alleged in the complaint that despite telephonic and written complaints no efforts were made by the O.Ps to rectify the complaint. The complainant has already filed on record the Job-Sheet issued by service centre in support of its case. The complainant is claiming the refund of the mobile phone.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to both the O.Ps who have filed their written statements. O.P-1 in its written statement has pleaded that the complaint is misconceived and no cause of action has arisen against O.P-1. It has also been impleaded that no deficiency in service has been pleaded against the O.P-1. O.P-2 in its written statement has pleaded that it is just a retailer who is doing business of selling of different telephone brands and if there is any defect in the handset than the complainant should approach the authorized service centre for rectification. Both the O.Ps have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The complainant as well as the O.Ps have filed their affidavit and supporting documents in support of their case.
4. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and the documents on record. The complainant has filed on record a copy of the cash memo issued by O.P-2 in support of sale of the mobile phone in the name of daughter of the complainant. The complainant has also placed on record service reports/ jobsheet dated 10.12.2013 and 11.03.2014 which shows that the mobile handset was having heating, hanging and non-camera functioning problem. The complainant has also placed on record copy of the letter sent through speed post to the O.Ps pointing out these defects. On the other side, the O.Ps have not placed on record any documentary evidence to rebut the claim of the complainant. The plea of the O.P-2 that it is simply seller did not absolve it of the responsibility of not selling defective handset to the customer being the face of manufactures to sell their products. Since O.Ps has sold a defective handset to the complainant, therefore, they are liable to refund the price of the product i.e. Rs.9,047.62 only, as Rs.452.38 was charged as vat and the same has gone to the public exchequer. The O.Ps is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and litigation cost. Ordered accordingly.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced on this 19th day of January, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
