DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001
Consumer Complaint No: 497 of 2010 Date of Institution: 09.06.2010 Date of Decision: 15.02.2016.
Harvinder S/o Sh. Dharma Chand, R/o Village Maidawas, Tehsil and District Gurgaon.
……Complainant.
Versus
Spice Retail Limited, Shop No.2 & 3, Jacobpura, Gurgaon, Tehsil & District Gurgaon through its authorized signatory.
Hot Spot Mobi Care, Repair & Service Solution, Location 232, Jacobpura, Gurgaon through its Prop/Authorized Person.
M/s Nokia India Pvt. Ltd having its Corporate Office at Tower-A, Plot No.243, Udyog Vihar, Phase-I, Dundahera, District Gurgaon-122016.
..Opposite parties
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SHRI SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER
SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.
Present: Shri Pawan Kumar Raghav, Adv for the complainant.
Shri V.K.Bhardwaj, Adv for OP-1
OP-2 & 3 exparte
ORDER SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he has purchased Nokia Mobile Phone Model No.Nokia-5130 from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.6370/-vide Invoice No.716124599 dated 10.07.2009 along with warranty (accidental damage of two years) and one year additional warranty. However, in the month of March, it became defective and was taken to the service centre i.e. OP-2 for repair/service but the OP-2 returned the faulty phone to the complainant after 15 days i.e. on 30.03.2010. The complainant again deposited the said mobile phone to the OP-2 on 28.04.2010 but again the same was returned back with the same problem. He again taken the handset to the service station but this time also the handset was returned without repair. Thus, non repairing of the mobile phone within the warranty period tantamounts to deficiency in service on their part. On the aforesaid allegations he has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties praying for refund of the price of the mobile phone with interest. He also sought compensation of Rs.50,000/- besides cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.11,000/-. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the purchase bill (Ex.C-2), job sheet of OP-2 Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-3 and terms and conditions for repair Ex.C-4.
2 OP-1 in its written reply has alleged that the warranty was provided by the manufacturer therefore all the deficiency qua the defective handset shall be raised against the manufacturer and not against the OP-1. However ,under the Hotpsot Care Pack Scheme, the OP-1 is authorized only to provide corrective maintenance services, supply and replacement of defective spare parts of the product on account of normal use including any unintentional accidental damage to the product. Under the said Care Pack Scheme no services are claimed to be provided for any inherent or manufacturing defect qua the handset. Under the said Care Pack Agreement the OP-1 had offered to replace the handset in question but the same was not acceptable to the complainant. However, the complainant submitted his handset on 28.04.2010 to the OP-2 but no defect was found in the phone and the same was returned to the complainant by the OP-2. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP-1.
3 OP-2 & 3 failed to turn up before this Forum and thus, were proceeded exparte vide order dated 05.02.2013 and 14.10.2014 respectively.
4 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record available on file carefully.
5 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency in service on their part on the ground that he has purchased Nokia Mobile Phone Model No. Nokia-5130 from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.6370/- vide Invoice dated 10.07.2009. However, the above handset became defective in the month of March, 2010 and thereafter was taken to the authorized service station of the manufacturer several times but the opposite parties failed to rectify the defect within the warranty period and as such the opposite parties were deficient in providing services to the complainant.
6 However, as per the version of the OP-1, the opposite party had offered to replace the handset in question within the scope of Care Pack Agreement but it was the complainant who had not accepted the said offer of the opposite party and thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
7 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it is evident that as per email dated 30.11.2015 the complainant was offered either refund of Rs.8,000/- or Lumia 535 and the complainant had agreed for Lumia 535. The OP-1 had also stated in its written reply that the opposite party had offered to replace the handset in question within the scope of Care Pack Agreement but it was the complainant who had not accepted the said offer of the opposite party. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice, we direct the opposite parties to replace the handset of the complainant with Lumia 535 or with up-graded model. The complainant is also entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.1100/-. The opposite parties shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
15.02.2016 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
