Haryana

Sonipat

CC/67/2016

Rohit Minor manjeet S/o Mahabir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Syntech Technology Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Manjeet

06 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.       

 

                                Complaint No.67 of 2016

                                Instituted on:09.03.2016                                             Date of order:06.05.2016

 

Rohit minor through Manjeet son of Mahabir Singh, resident of Ward No.2, Kharkhoda, tehsil Kharkhoda, distt. Sonepat.

..Complainant

 

                            Versus

 

1.Syntech Technology Pvt. Ltd., F-2, Block No.B-1 Ground Floor, Mohan Co-op. Industrial Estate Mathura rod, New Delhi-44.

2.Gupta Hello Point, Thana road Chowk, Kharkhoda tehsil Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonepat through its Prop.

3.Anna Communication Haryana G-10, Shyam Ji Complex Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar.

..Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

           Respondent no.1 and 2 ex-parte on 18.4.2016.

           Sh. Vikas on behalf of respondent no.3.

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

         

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that on 20.4.2015 he has purchased mobile phone make Gionee Model V6L from respondent no.2 for Rs.14500/- with one year warranty, but after 3/4 months, the said mobile phone has stopped its working.  The complainant has deposited the phone on 14.8.2015, 17.9.2015 and 29.9.2015, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        Notice to the respondent no.1 to 3 were issued through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.1 and 2 and due to this, the respondents no.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.04.2016.

          Sh. Vikas has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.3 on 18.4.2016 itself and has filed the reply submitting therein that Gionee Mobile has already offered the complainant the replacement of his handset with new box back handset and thus  prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the submissions of the complainant and respondent no.3 and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        The complainant’s stand is that he has purchased the mobile set of Gionee Company worth Rs.14500/-, but after 3/4 months, the said mobile phone has stopped its working.  The complainant has deposited the phone on 14.8.2015, 17.9.2015 and 29.9.2015, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          On the other hand, the respondent no.3 in its written statement has submitted that Gionee Mobile has already offered the complainant the replacement of his handset with new box back handset.

          In the present case, the complainant has purchased the mobile set worth Rs.14500/- on 20.4.2015 and  he has approached the respondent no.3 on 14.8.2015, 14.9.2015 and 29.9.2015 with the complaints of display, network, hang, touch auto working problem, hang while internet browsing.

          But the above said defects were not removed by the respondent no.3.   In our view, when the defects were not repairable, then it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with new one. But it is not done so by the respondents and that amounts to grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.1000/- (Rs.one thousand) for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  The respondents are further directed to provide the new mobile set to the complainant upto the price of Rs.15500/- (Rs.fifteen thousand five hundred  i.e.  Rs.14500/- actual price of defective mobile set  + Rs.1000/- as compensation).  The complainant is also directed to return the defective mobile set alongwith all its accessories to the respondents and in case the mobile set is in possession of the respondents, in that event, the respondents shall not claim the mobile set from the complainant.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to the complainant and respondent no.3 free of costs and the same be also sent to the respondent no.1 and 2 through registered post for information and strict compliance of the order.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)                        (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF                             DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:06.05.2016