Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/684

Vishal Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

28 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                                    CC No: 684 of 29.09.2014

                                                                   Date of Decision: 28.04.2015

                                                                                                                   

Vishal Sharma s/o Sh.Sanjay Kumar Sharma r/o 162/1, Lachman Nagar, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana.

..…Complainant

Versus

1. Syntech Technology Pvt. Ltd., F-2, Block No.B-1, Ground Floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044, through its Managing Director/Chairman.

2. Image Services (Authorized Service Centre), 17-AX, Model Town Extension Market, Ludhiana.

3. Mobile Hub, Shop/Flat no.2, Opposite Punjab and Sind Bank, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana, through its Proprietor/Partner.

 

…..Opposite parties 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                   Sh.S.P.Garg, Member

                   Smt.Babita, Member

 

Present:       Sh.Chander Kalia, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.Sukhbir Singh, Representative for OP1 and OP2.

                   OP3 exparte.

                   

                        ORDER

 

(BABITA, MEMBER)

 

 

1.               Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Vishal Sharma s/o Sh.Sanjay Kumar Sharma r/o 162/1, Lachman Nagar, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against Syntech Technology Pvt. Ltd., F-2, Block No.B-1, Ground Floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044, through its Managing Director/Chairman and others (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OPs’)- directing them to replace the Mobile set of the complainant and to pay Rs.70,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a mobile handset make Gionee E-Life E3 bearing IMEI no.861169024051162, through authorized dealer i.e. OP3, vide invoice no.475 for Rs.15,000/- on 23.7.13. The complainant started using the said mobile phone and found a white light spot at the lower part of the touch screen in the month of June 2014. The complainant immediately contacted the service centre of company i.e. OP2 on 25.6.14 and apprised them about the problem being faced by him. The officials of OP2 checked the mobile phone and told the complainant that the touch screen as well as the display of the mobile handset have developed problems and is required to be changed. The complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP2 for replacement of defective parts, vide job sheet of OP2 dated 4.7.14. Thereafter on 25.7.14 complainant went to the office of OP2 and found that the problem of white light spot on the screen of mobile was not fixed up and was still present in the mobile and further noticed that the mobile phone presented a very shabby look and entire body finishing and seals below the battery were badly damaged and rather it appeared that it was not the same mobile, which he handed over to OP2 for repair. Thereafter complainant apprised the situation to Manager of OP2, who asked the complainant to deposit with them entire box of mobile phone including accessories i.e. charge and earphones, box and original bill, so that they can send the same to the company. The complainant agreed to them and deposited the entire box including the accessories and the original bill. The complainant got the acknowledgement from the OP2 on the same job sheet dated 4.7.14. Thereafter the complainant made several visits to the office of OP2 and also sent several mail to various offices of the company to get the mobile phone back, but to no avail. Complainant also served a legal notice through his counsel upon the OPs on 29.8.14 in this regard, but they neither replied to the same nor took any action. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed this complaint.   

3.                On notice of the complaint, OP1 and OP2 appeared through their Representative Sh.Sukhbir Singh and filed a reply, vide which, they submitted that they are ready to replace customer’s handset with new one.

4.                Notice of the complainant was sent to OP3, which was served. But despite service of the notice none had come present on behalf of OP3. As such, OP3 is proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 05.11.14.

5.                In order to prove his case, Ld. counsel for complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant Sh.Vishal Sharma Ex.CA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated, as narrated in the complaint and also placed on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6. On the other hand, no evidence of OP1 and OP2 was present, as Sh.Sukhbir Singh, Representative of OP1 and OP2 had suffered a statement that the written reply filed by OP1 and Op2 may kindly be read as the evidence of OP1 and OP2 also.

6.                We have heard the Ld. counsel for both the parties and have also perused the entire record before us.

7.                It is an admitted fact on the record that the complainant purchased a mobile handset make Gionee E-Life E3 bearing IMEI no.861169024051162 from OP3, vide invoice no.475 for Rs.15,000/- on 23.7.13, which is also evident from Ex.C1. Further it is proved on record that the mobile was giving problem as a white light spot at the lower part of the touch screen is displayed. The complainant immediately contacted the service centre of company i.e. OP2, who told that the touch screen as well as the display of the mobile handset is required to be changed. As a result of which, the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP2 for replacement of defective parts, vide job sheet of OP2 dated 4.7.14. But the problem was not sorted out and was still present in the mobile. However as per the allegations of the complainant, the mobile was returned in a very shabby look and entire body finishing and seals below the battery were badly damaged and rather it appeared that it was not the same mobile, which he handed over to OP2 for repair. The complainant also deposited entire box of mobile phone including accessories i.e. charge and earphones, box and original bill with the OPs and the complainant got the acknowledgement from the OP2 on the same job sheet dated 4.7.14 regarding the deposit of the whole items. But despite several visits to the office of OP2 and after sending several mails to various offices of the company mobile was not repaired and was not handed over to the complainant. Complainant also served a legal notice through his counsel upon the OPs, but with no result. It is proved that despite serving legal notice dated 29.8.14 by the complainant to the Ops and despite repeated requests made by the complainant to the Ops to replace or repair the hand set in question Ops failed to do so. Since OPs failed to carry out the necessary repair in the mobile set of the complainant despite his repeated requests and visits, so it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

8.                Sequel to the above, discussion, the present complaint is allowed and Ops are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same make and model as admitted by them in their reply and further OPs are directed to pay Rs.1500/-(One thousand five hundred only) as compensation and litigation expenses compositely assessed to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, which be made available to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

 

          (Babita)                          (S.P.Garg)                      (R.L.Ahuja)

          Member                           Member                         President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:28.04.2015 

Hardeep Singh