BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Kusum Lata, w/o Sh. Deepak Bansal, r/o #1110, Sector 18-C,

Chandigarh

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.  Deleted vide order dated 28.10.2009

2.  Huawei, RT Outsourcing Services Ltd., SCO No.23, Sector 18-D, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

                                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM: SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI                    PRESIDING MEMBER

                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                    MEMBER

                DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Varun Katyal,  Adv. for complainant.

OP-1 deleted.

OP No.2 exparte.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

             Succinctly put, the complainant purchased a mobile set from OP-1 on 13.12.2008 vide invoice no. 12008-09/4240 for amount of Rs.1499/-. During the warranty period, the said mobile set stopped working and it was found that the battery of the mobile became defective. On 30.07.2009, her husband visited the office OP-2(authorized service centre of OP-1), for replacement of the defective battery. The OP-2 kept the battery and told them that presently they are not having any new battery in their stock and further assured them, that the defective battery will be replaced, as and when, the new battery is available in their stock. After that they kept on visiting the office of OP-2 for the same but was of no use at all. Till to date the defective battery is lying with OP-2.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In view of the statement made by Counsel for the complainant, the complaint against OP-1 was deleted vide order dated 28.10.2009.  Notice was served to the OP-2. The Engineer/Representative of OP-2 appeared till 7.05.2010 but did not file reply and evidence. After that none appeared on behalf of the OP-2.  Accordingly the OP-2 was proceeded ex-parte. 

3.             The complainant led evidence in support of her contentions.

4.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record. 

5.              Annexure C-1, shows that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question on 13.12.2008 vide invoice no. 12008-09/4240 for amount of Rs.1499/-.   Annexure C-2 is the document, in which the OP-2 has acknowledged the receipt of faulty battery from the complainant. From the above facts it is clear that the battery of the mobile set did not function after few months of its purchase and during the warranty period itself. The contention of the complainant is that the battery is defective and a number of visits had been made to OP-2 to replace it with a new battery but all in vain. The phone is purchased by a customer to make use of the same but if it does not work, it causes not only harassment to him but also is a source of mental harassment because even after spending money, he has not been able to make use of it, which is his right after spending his money for the purchase of mobile.  In our opinion the OP-2 was bound to replace it with a new one, which it failed to do and rather the complainant was forced for this unwanted litigation.  The OP-2 has not controverted any of the contentions of the complainant, as no body appeared after service of notice and was proceeded against exparte which shows that OP-2 has nothing to say in his defence.

6.             The complainant had even served a notice (Annexure C-2) on the OP-2 but in spite of that it did not replace the battery, causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant for which they would be liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

7.             Keeping in view the above detailed analysis of the case, in our considered opinion the present complaint has a lot of merit, weight and substance and hence it must succeed.  We, therefore, decide the complaint in favour of the complainant and against OP-2 and pass the following directions :-

a.      The OP- 2 shall replace the defective battery with new battery of same configuration & model with fresh warranty of one year from the date of delivery to the complainant and supply it to the complainant.

b.      The OP-2 shall further pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing physical harassment, mental agony  and pain to the complainant.

c.       The OPs shall also pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- as costs of litigation to the complainant.

                                The aforesaid order be complied by the OP-2 within a period of 30 days from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP-2 would be liable to pay the amount of Rs.5,000/-  alongwith penal interest @18% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 12.10.2009, till the defective battery  is replaced with a new one and the compensation is paid, besides paying the cost of litigation of Rs.2500/-.

                 Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.