Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/825/2013

Bhupinder Singh s/o shri Surinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sunny Mobiles, - Opp.Party(s)

R.P.Kait

09 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                            Complaint No.825 of 2013.

                                                                                            Date of institution:14.11.2013.

                                                                                            Date of decision: 9.10.2015.

Bhupinder Singh aged about 30 years son of Sh. Surinder Kumar, resident of VPO Kalawar, Sub Tehsil Mustfabad, District Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                                                                    …Complainant.

                                    Versus                      

 

1. Sunny Mobile, Pathron Wala Bazar, Jagadhri-135003.
2. Nokia Care Centre, Pristine Enamor SCO 125, 1^st Floor, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.
3. Nokia India Private Ltd. Hotel Radisson, Commercial Plaza Mahipalpur, NH-18, New Delhi through its Managing Director.                                                                                                                                          …Opposite parties.

 

Before:            SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Rajpal Kait, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

                OP No.1 given up.

                Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.2 & 3.

                

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Bhupinder Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to refund a sum of Rs. 2100/- as sale price of the mobile in question and also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment alongwith Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses. 

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant purchased one Mobile Nokia ESN/IMEI bearing No. 357270051555462 on 15.10.2013 from Sunny Mobile, Pathron Wala Bazar, Jagadhri who is authorized dealer of the company for an amount of Rs. 2100/-  vide cash Bill No. 388 dated 15.10.2013. It has been further alleged that after two days from the date of its purchase, the mobile set started giving problem as the display of the mobile set was not working properly. The complainant approached to OP No.2 who kept the mobile set with him and issued a service job sheet and asked him to come the next day. When the complainant approached to Op No.2 on the next day, again OP No.2 asked the complainant to come after 2-3 days. When the complainant again went to OP No.2 but was told that his mobile cannot be repaired and the same will be replaced only after deposit of Rs. 500/-. The mobile set was within warranty period and it was the responsibility of the OPs to replace the said mobile free of costs but they did not pay any heed to his genuine request. Thus, there is a great deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, this complaint. 

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.2 & 3 appeared and filed their written statement jointly whereas OP No.1 was given up being unnecessary party vide order dated 22.1.2015. OPs No.2 & 3 filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has failed to attach any technical report as per section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and on merit it has been submitted that as per the warranty, if there was any default in the mobile, the same was to be removed by the company. However, the complainant himself damaged the display of the mobile, for which he has to pay the requisite amount as the breakage is not covered under warranty. It was further denied that any filthy language was used by OP No.2 against the complainant, and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Bill dated 15.10.2013 for a sum of Rs. 2100/- as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of Service Job Sheet as Annexure C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 failed to adduce any evidence, hence their evidence was closed by court order dated 8.5.2015.

6.         We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file carefully and minutely.

7.                     From the perusal of Annexure C-1, which is copy of bill, it is evident that the complainant purchased the mobile Nokia 108 vide bill No. 388 dated 15.10.2013 for Rs. 2100/-. The counsel for the complainant argued that at the time of purchasing the abovesaid mobile, it was assured by the said seller that the mobile would provide best service to him and there will be no complaint in the mobile in future and have given the guarantee/warranty of one year of the mobile in question and further assured the complainant that if any complaint or defect arises in the model then the same will be replaced with new one without any delay. It has been further argued that the said mobile after 2 days from the date of purchase started giving problem i.e. display of the said mobile set was not working properly which is evident from job card Annexure C-2. Learned counsel for the complainant further alleged that these defects were brought into the notice of the opposite party No.2 who checked and stated that mobile cannot be repaired and the same will have to be replaced only on deposit of Rs. 500/-. Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for OPs No.2 & 3 argued that as per warranty, if there was any default in the mobile, the same was to be removed by the company. However, the complainant has himself damaged the display of the mobile, for which he will have to pay the requisite amount as the breakage is not covered under warranty and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.                     We have gone through the arguments advanced by both the parties, from the perusal of job card Annexure C-2, it is clear that mobile set was having problem in its display as the major system has been noted as “Display Black Line” by the service engineer of the service centre OP No.2, who is authorized service centre of OP No.3. The contention of the OPs that there was no manufacturing defect and there was only break in display is not tenable to our mind. As the service engineer has nowhere mentioned in the job sheet that screen glass of the mobile set was broken, when the screen glass of the mobile set was in order then how it can be presumed that the display of the mobile set was broken. Further version of the complainant is supported by his affidavit Annexure CX. As the problem of “Black line” in display has been reported only within 2 days from its purchase, so we are of the considered view that it cannot be ruled out the problem in display was not due to manufacturing defect. Even, the OPs failed to file any affidavit of service engineer,who attended the complaint of the complainant and other evidence to prove his case, hence, we have no option except to accept the complaint of the complainant.

10.                   We are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for relief qua repair of his mobile set. Hence, we direct the OPs No.2 & 3 to repair the mobile phone of complainant and set it in proper working order free of costs within 15 days from the receipt of mobile set from the complainant and further to pay Rs. 500/- as compensation to the complainant. As such, the complaint is partly allowed in above terms.  Copies of this order be sent to parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court: 9.10.2015.                     

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.