Haryana

Sonipat

CC/365/2015

Manish Sharma Alias Manish Kumar S/o Rakesh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorised Dealer rudra Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Azad Atri

14 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.365 of 2015

                                Instituted on:29.09.2015

                                Date of order:14.12.2015

 

Manish Sharma alias Manish Kumar son of Rakesh Sharma, resident of H.No.153, VPO Bahalgarh, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

                                                      ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1.The Authorized Dealer, Rudra Comm. Shop no.9, Old DC road, Near Bhagat Hospital, Sonepat.

2.The Manager, Gionee Mobile Co. Import by UT Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office SCO 363-64, Sector 35B, Chandigarh 160022.

3.M/s Wadhwa Telecom, Khewra road, Bahalgarh, Distt. Sonepat.

 

                                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Shri Azad Attri, Adv.for complainant.

           Shri Sumit on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2.

Respondent no.3 ex-parte.

 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that on 18.6.2014 he has purchased one Gionee Model E mobile set from respondent no.3 for Rs.22,000/-. The said mobile has worked properly for five months and thereafter it started creating problem for the complainant.    The back camera of the phone was not working properly and the said mobile was deposited with respondent no.1 for removal of defects.  When the complainant went to collect his mobile, he found that the side crome and touch screen of the said mobile were damaged.  The complainant objected to the same and then the respondent no.1 demanded Rs.10,000/- from the complainant for the total repair of the mobile.    On 1.1.2015, the complainant paid Rs.5000/- to the respondent no.1 vide bill no.115 and then only the said mobile was returned to the complainant.   The said mobile thereafter worked for only two months.  The phone does not switch on and it remains as dead and the respondent no.1 again checked the same and found the complaint genuine. The respondent no.1 kept the mobile with him vide job sheet dated 4.3.2015 and at that time also, the phone was within warranty.   The complainant was again asked to pay Rs.10,000/-, but the complainant was not agree for the said payment 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.        The respondent no.1 and 2 only have appeared, whereas respondent no.3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 6.11.2015.

          Shri Sumit in his affidavit has submitted that in the mobile set of the complainant, there was problem in touch plus PCB and they are ready to repair the mobile set of the complainant.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the complainant and ld. Counsel for the respondents  at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has purchased the mobile in question  on 18.6.2014 from respondent no.3. Sumit who has appeared on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2 has deposed in his affidavit that  there was problem in touch and PCB of the mobile in question of the complainant.

          The complainant has filed the present complaint before this Forum on 29.9.2015 and prior to it, the complainant has approached the respondents several times for the removal of the defects, but when he gets no fruitful result, he has filed the present complaint against the respondents. Further more, the respondents have charged Rs.5000/- from the complainant during the period when the mobile set of the complainant was within warranty.  The evidence led by the complainant fully supports the case of the complainant and thus, we hereby direct the respondents to  compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.1000/- (Rs. One thousand only) and to hand over the new mobile set upto the price of Rs.23000/-  (Rs.22000 price of the old set plus Rs.1000/- as compensation) to the complainant.  If the mobile in question is in the possession of the complainant, in that event, the complainant shall return the defective mobile set alongwith all its original accessories to the respondents immediately and in case of any short accessory, the respondents will be at liberty to deduct the cost of that short accessory from the awarded amount.

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

          Certified copy of this order be provided to the complainant and respondents free of costs.

          File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:14.12.2015