Haryana

Panchkula

CC/30/2015

ANUJ CHAWLA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SYNTECH TECHNOLOGY .(GIONEE INDIA). - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

22 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                      

Consumer Complaint No	:	30 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	10.02.2015
Date of Decision	:	22.04.2015

                                                                                          

Anuj Chawla S/o Sh.Subhash Chawla, R/o House No.585, Housing Board Colony, Himshikha, Pinjore.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. Syntech Technology (GIONEE INDIA) Pvt. Ltd. through its Prop./Partner/Authorised Signatory, F-2, Block No.B-1, Ground Floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.
2. Shivam Communication (Authorized Service Centre Gionee Mobile) through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Signatory, SCO 38, 1^st Floor, Sector-11, Panchkula.

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:               Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                             Mr.Anil Sharma, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person. 

Ops already ex-parte.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The complainant-Anuj chawla has filed the present complaint against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a smart phone of GIONEE model No.PIONEER P3 (Black) Android version 4.2 from ebay.in (online) on 25.08.2014 vide invoice Annexure C-1 for an amount of Rs.6,449/- with a warranty of one year. From the very beginning of purchase, the phone started giving problem. The complainant approached the OP No.2 with the problem of white shade in the main screen of the handset. The Op No.2 told that they would change the main screen of the handset and it would take 4 to 5 days. After few days, the complainant contacted the Op No.2 through telephonically to know whether his phone has been replaced or not but the Op No.2 told that the screen has not been received from the Op No.1 and it would take 2 or 3 days. After three days, the complainant again contacted the Op No.2 who told that the screen of handset of the complainant has been replaced and took the delivery of phone. The complainant visited the Op No.2 to collect his phone and there he found that the touch screen of phone was broken. The complainant complained at reception who told him to come after 2 days as their officer was not present. After two days, the complainant visited the Op No.2 and got serviced his phone. But after few days of use, the battery of handset started giving problem i.e. 15-20% to 0% and was shutting down completely and the phone only started after putting on charging. On 19.12.2014, the complainant visited the Op No.2 who told that they would update the software and if the problem again persists, they would change the battery and the complainant submitted his handset. Next day, the complainant contacted the OP No.2 telephonically to know about his phone and the Op No.2 replied that the software has been done and took the delivery of phone. When the complainant visited the Op No.2, he found that it was closed. The complainant again contacted the OP No.2 telephonically and they replied that the service centre would be opened in afternoon. Afternoon, the complainant visited the OP No.2 and received his phone. After using the mobile, he found that the problem still persisted. Next day, the complainant again visited the Op No.2 who told that the complainant would get battery within 2 or 3 days. The complainant asked for job sheet and he was given a complaint No.RVSRN1501SCP00073. After two days, the complainant visited the Op No.2 to take the battery but the OP No.2 told him that the battery has not been received and it would take 2 or 3 days. On 26.12.2014, after contact by the complainant, the Op No.2 told that it would again take 4 or 5 days. On 31.12.2014, the complainant got the battery replaced but in the evening, the problem still persisted. On 31.12.2014, the complainant made a complaint to Op No.1 through email. On 02.01.2015, the complainant received a call from Op No.1 and was asked to visit OP No.2 again. On 03.01.2015, the complainant visited the Op No.2 who told that the motherboard of mobile would be replaced and it would take 3 or 4 days and gave him a complaint No. RVSRN1501SCP00010. On 06.01.2015, the complainant phoned the Op No.2 who told that the motherboard has not been received yet. On 07.01.2015, the complainant called the Op No.2 who told him that the motherboard has been received. On 08.01.2015, the complainant got the motherboard replaced from the Op No.2. After replacement of motherboard, the phone, after getting charging, default app “Power manager” same problem occurred and the complainant used the phone without app, it worked find. On 09.01.2015, the complainant made a complaint through email to Op No.1 about the app problem. On 10.01.2015, the OP No.1 called the complainant and shared his feedback to technical department but the problem still persisted. On 11.01.2015, 12.01.2015 and 15.01.2015, the complainant did the email to Op No.1 with screenshot. In the evening on 15.01.2015, the complainant received a call from company’s employee who told him to visit Op No.2 and his problem would be solved definitely. On 16.01.2015, the complainant submitted his phone (Annexure C-2) and the phone of the complainant was repaired. On 20.01.2015, the complainant visited the Op No.2 and checked the phone but the same problem was still persisting. The OP No.2 told the complainant that they would send the phone to Op No.1 and it would take 10 or 15 days as the company would solve out that problem. The complainant requested the Op No.1 through mail for refund of his amount. On 28.01.2015, the OP No.1 called the complainant and told him to take the phone after 4 or 5 days. On 05.02.2015, the Op No.2 got his phone back but the problem was still there. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the Op No.1 through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the Op No.1. It is deemed to be served and the Op No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.03.2015.
3. Notice was issued to the Op No.2 through process server. But none has appeared on behalf of the Op No.2  after effecting service and the Op No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.03.2015.
4. The for the complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard learned the complainant appearing in person and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
6. It is evident from the retail invoice (Annexure C-1) coupled with affidavit that the complainant purchased a smartphone of GIONEE model No.PIONEER P3 (Black) Android version 4.2 for a sum of Rs.6,449/- with the warranty of one year.  From the very beginning of purchase, the phone started giving problem. The complainant approached the OP No.2 with the problem of white shade in the main screen of the handset and after a few days, the screen of handset of the complainant has been replaced. As per the case of complainant, after two days, the complainant visited the Op No.2 and got serviced his phone. But after few days of use, the battery of handset started giving problem i.e. 15-20% to 0% and was shutting down completely and the phone only started after putting on charging. On 19.12.2014, the complainant visited the Op No.2 who told that they would update the software and if the problem again persists, they would change the battery. The software of the phone of the complainant has been updated. After using the mobile, he found that the problem still persisted and on 31.12.2014, the complainant got the battery replaced but in the evening, the problem still persisted. On 31.12.2014, the complainant made a complaint to Op No.1 through email (Annexure C-4) and received a call from Op No.1 and was asked to visit OP No.2 again. On 08.01.2015, the complainant got the motherboard replaced from the Op No.2. On 09.01.2015, the complainant made a complaint through email to Op No.1 about the app problem. On 10.01.2015, the OP No.1 called the complainant and shared his feedback to technical department but the problem still persisted. On 11.01.2015, 12.01.2015 and 15.01.2015, the complainant did the email to Op No.1 with screenshot. In the evening on 15.01.2015, the complainant received a call from company’s employee who told him to visit Op No.2 and his problem would be solved definitely. On 16.01.2015, the complainant submitted his phone (Annexure C-2) and the phone of the complainant was repaired. On 20.01.2015, the complainant visited the Op No.2 and checked the phone but the same problem was still persisting. The OP No.2 told the complainant that they would send the phone to Op No.1 and it would take 10 or 15 days as the company would solve out that problem. The complainant requested the Op No.1 through mail for refund of his amount. On 05.02.2015, the Op No.2 got his phone back but the problem was still there. The complainant has filed his sworn affidavit (Annexure C-A).
7. Moreover, the Ops did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Ops shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the same is accepted as correct and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops is proved.
8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Ops are jointly and severely directed as under:-

(i)      To pay the price of the mobile i.e. Rs.6,449/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of purchase i.e. 25.08.2014 till its realization.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.8000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

22.04.2015     ANIL SHARMA       ANITA KAPOOR     DHARAM PAL

                        MEMBER               MEMBER                  PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT