BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWNI.

                                                                      Complaint No.98  of 2014.

                                                                      Date of Instt: 3.4.2014.

                                                                      Date of Order: 20.3.2015.

Surender Kumar son of Shri Nanu Ram, resident of Uttam Nagar, Loharu Road, Near New Chara Mandi, Bhiwani tehsil and district Bhiwani.

 ….…. Complainant

                              Versus

1. Spice Mobiles, Head Office Global Knowledge, Park 19A and 19B, Sector-125, Noida-201301 (UP) through its Authorized Representative.
2. Jagdma Distributor, Near Jhabru market, Siwani Road, Tosham, tehsil Tosham, district Bhiwani (through its authorized representative).
3. Universal Mobiles Care, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani, through its Authorized Signatory.                                                     

…….Respondent.

               COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

               CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:         Shri B.D.Yadav, President.

                    Shri Balraj Singh, Member,

                    Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member,

Present:   Shri Amit Kumar Tanwar, Adv. for complainant.

                Shri Madan Singh Parmar, Adv. for OP No1.

                Ops No.2 & 3 ex parte.

ORDER

                    In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that he had purchased Hand Set of Spice Company for a sum of Rs.6000/- vide bill No. 624 dated 1.9.2013  from respondent No.3. It is alleged that soon after purchase the hand set became defective within warranty period and a complaint was lodged in this behalf with the respondents. The complainant visited the show-room of respondents several times and requested to repair the same but they flatly refused to do the needful. The respondents did not repair the Hand set, hence the complainant is deprived of use of the Hand Set and suffered a loss. Now the complainant has claimed the replacement of the Hand Set along with compensation and costs.

2.                Respondent No.1 on appearance filed written statement admitting to the extent that as per record of the answering respondent the complainant visited the Service Centre on 20.2.2014 with “Touch Broken” problem. Accordingly the handset was returned to the complainant. It is submitted that the warranty of hand set ceases to exists if the handset is physical damaged. It is also submitted that as per Limited Warranty condition, the consumer does not have any coverage or benefits under the limited warranty if the product has been subject to accident and normal wear and tear. It is further submitted that as per warranty scheme of the company a new handset can only be liable to be replaced with new one  when there is a irreparable defects in the hand set and same is not proved by the complainant. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3                  Despite service, respondents No.2 & 3 did not appear, hence they were proceeded against ex  parte vide order dated 28.5.2014.

4.                Both the parties have filed their duly sworn affidavit in their evidence to prove their respective version. 

5.                 We have heard the complainant as well as Ld. Counsel for respondent No.1 at length.

6.                 Complainant has argued that Hand Set was purchased from respondent No.4 vide Annexure C1, the Photo state copy of bill. A perusal of complaint as well as Annexure C2 & C3 photo stat copies of job sheet reveals that the Hand Set of the complainant became out of order within warranty period. The version of the complainant is supported by an affidavit. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention here that the respondent No.1 in his written statement admitted that complainant visited the Service Centre on 20.2.2014 with “Touch Broken” problem.  The surrounding circumstances also suggest that the Hand Set suffers from manufacturing defect for which manufacturing company is liable.  The respondent failed to rebut the version of complainant and also did not file any cogent and convincing evidence. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is accepted with costs and respondents are directed:-

1.       To replace the Hand Set with new one or to refund the cost along with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till its final realization.

          2.       To pay Rs. 2200/- as litigation charges.

                    The compliance of the order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.  Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 20.3.2015                               

President,

                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                            Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

(Balraj Singh)        (Anita Sheoran)

Member.                Member.