BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no. 148 of 2014
Date of Institution: 4.11.2014
Date of Decision: 24.8.2016
Taj Mohammad son of Shri Risal Deen, resident of E-1, Staff Colony, Govt. Polytechnic, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
- Sumit Mobiles, Jagdev Singh Chowk, Circular Road, Sirsa, through its proprietor.
- Chugh Telecom, Shop No. 83, New MC Market, Sirsa, District Sirsa, authorized Service Centre of Spice Retail Limited.
- Spice Retail Ltd., 5 th Floor, 5, Global Knowledge Park, 19A and 19B, Sector 125, NOIDA-201 301 (UP).
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Shri J.B.L.Garg, Advocate for complainant.
Shri Sandeep Chaudhary, Advocate for Opposite party no. 1.
Opposite party no.2 exparte vide order dated 12.1.2015.
Shri R.K.Mehta, Advocate for opposite party no. 3.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that on 19.9.2013, he had purchased Spice M1491 one mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 911324150074369 Op no.1 for a sum of Rs. 7900/- vide cash memo no. 2458 dt. 19.9.2013. OP no. 1 had given one year warranty. On 30.10.2013 the said mobile set become out of order. Upon which he approached OP no. 2 but the said mobile phone could not be repaired and on 15.11.13 the complainant was given another mobile bearing IMEI No. 911324150024265 and IMEI No. 911324150074369. Thereafter in December 2013 the second hand-set developed defect and Op No. 2 repaired it but again in January 2014, the said mobile again developed defect and Op no. 2 repaired it. Again on 5.2.14 due to defect in the phone complainant visited to op no. 2 who supplied the phone after repair to the complainant on 26.2.14. Again on 3.3.14 due to charging problem the complainant visited Op no. 2 who changed the data cable. But the phone did not work on 5.3.14 the data cable was again changed. Again on 8.4.14 due to charging problem complainant visited the OP no. 2 who kept the phone with him. Complainant also made complaints to OP no. 3 and then in May 2014 the said defective phone was replaced with another mobile. On 13.8.14, the third hand set supplied to the complainant developed defect and the same was deposited with Op no. 2 on 10.9.14. Complainant also lodged his complaints with Op no. 3 telephonically as well as e mail but no effect. The said mobile phone is still lying in defective condition with OP no. 2. Hence this complaint.
2. On notice, Ops no.1 and 3 appeared and contested the case by filing written replies, whereas OP no. 2 was proceeded exparte vide order dt. 12.1.2015. OP no. 1 admitted the sale of the phone to the complainant but denied the remaining allegations. Whereas OP no. 3 replied that there is a deficiency on the part of the complainant not to approach the ASC for rectification defect. OP No. 1 is not authorized retailer of the OP No. 3. It is further replied that during the limited warranty period of one year warranty the Ops provides better services with every new genuine handset against any manufacturing defect. Ops further denied the remaining allegations of the complainant.
3. By way of evidence, the complainant produced his affidavit Ex. C1, photo copy of cash memo Ex.C2 and copy of job sheet Ex. C3 to Ex.6, copy of e.mails Ex.C7 and Ex.C8. Whereas, Op no. 1 filed his affidavit Ex. R1. But OP No. 3 failed to adduce any evidence despite several opportunities and last opportunity.
4. We have heard ld. counsels for parties and have gone through the record carefully.
5. The version of the OPs no. 1 and 3 that complainant failed to approach the authorized service centre have no force because complainant through various job cards Ex. C3 to Ex. C6 and e.mails Ex. C7 and Ex. C8 successfully proved that there was defect in the mobile sets provided by the Ops to the complainant three times and he approached every time to the authorized service centre i.e. OP no. 2. Through Ex. C6 the defective mobile set bearing IMEI 1/MEID1 911324150019984 model No. MI 491 and IMEI2/MEID2 911324150070086 under warranty was handed over to op no. 2 who is authorized service centre of OP No. 3 for necessary service but on Ex. C6 there is no delivery date. As such allegations of the complainant that phone is lying with op no. 2 is correct. Keeping all the circumstances in mind and the fact that Ops replaced the mobile phone again and again, we are of the considered view that it will be justified if the Ops provide the mobile set lying with op no. 2 to the complainant after removing its defects and making it defect free because the defect occurred is within the warranty. We order accordingly. Compliance of the order be made within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. All the three Ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:24.8.2016 Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
