Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1325/2009

Madhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The M.D.R. Services India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant in person

07 May 2010

ORDER


CHANDIGARH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-IIPlot No. 5-B, Sector 19-B, Madhya marg, Chandigarh - 160019
CONSUMER CASE NO. 1325 of 2009
1. MadhuW/o Sh. Deepak, R/o # 3467, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. The M.D.R. Services India Pvt. Ltd.SCO 2467-68, Sector 22-C, F.F. Chaandigarh2. Tata Indian Plantinum CommunicationsSCO 445-46, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :Deepak Massa, Authorised agent for the complainant
For the Respondent :OP-1 exparte Raj Karan Verka, Advocate

Dated : 07 May 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

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

========

 

Complaint  Case No  :1325 of 2009

Date of Institution :  22.09.2009

Date of  Decision   :  07.05.2010

 

 

Madhu w/o Sh. Deepak, #3467, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh.

 

 ……Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

 

1]   The M.D.R. Services India Pvt. Ltd., SCO No. 2467-68, Sector 22-C, 1st Floor, Chandigarh.

 

2]   TATA Indicom Platinum Communications, SCO No.445-46, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

 

.…..Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:     SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA              PRESIDENT

          MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA             MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT: Sh. Deepak Nassa, Auth. Agent for the Complainant.

           OP No.1 Ex-parte.

          Sh.Raj Karan Verka, Adv. for OP No.2.

         

 

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

 

 

        The present complaint has been filed by Smt. Madhu, praying that the OPs be directed to replace the defective mobile set, as well as pay compensation for deficiency in service.

        The case made out by the Complainant is as under.

        The Complainant purchased a TATA Indicom (HUAWEI) mobile handset from OP No.2 on 06.02.2008, vide Retail Invoice No. 5914 for Rs.1700/-. This mobile set developed problems of “Turn on Off and Hang up”. So, the Complainant took the handset to OP No.1 for repair on 03.02.2009. OP No. 1 retained the handset for repair and issued receipt dated 3.2.2009. Since then the set is still lying un-repaired with OP No. 1. The Complainant has made various personal visits to OP No.1 and his even written a letter to the Nodal Officer of TATA Indicom Service, but no fruitful result has been achieved. Hence, the Complainant has filed the present complaint, seeking relief against the OPs.

2]      Notice of the complaint was duly sent to the OPs. 

3]      OPs No. 1 did not turn up despite due service of notice, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.

4]      OP No.2 in their reply have admitted the purchase of mobile handset of Huawei Company by the Complainant. They have submitted that in case there was any defect in the Handset, then, as per terms and conditions of warranty, the Complainant had to approach the authorized service center of M/s Huawei Technologies, and OP No. 2 had no role in the repair etc. of the mobile handset. They are only a Dealer, selling the products of Huawei Technology Co. Ltd.

5]      We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and perused the evidence led by both parties in support of their contentions.

6]      The Complainant, in this case, has purchased a mobile handset from the OPs and has also used it for almost a whole year. She has found it defective only 3 days before the warranty was to expire. Hence, she took it to the Service Centre for repair The Service Centre has not yet returned her repaired/un-repaired phone. As per the warranty, the product inclusive of battery and accessories could be repaired/ replaced at the option of the Company within a period of 12 months. The repaired product provided would be free from any defect.

        When a customer purchases a mobile hand set, he obviously expects that he will not have to kept it deposited with the Service Centres of the Company. If the Service Centre had acted sensibly, they would have quickly repaired the phone and returned it to the satisfaction of the Complainant. But, this is not the case.

7]      So, now, in view of the pleadings and the facts of the case, this complaint is hereby allowed and the OPs are directed to:-

 

i)  To replace the phone/ refund Rs.1700/- being the cost of mobile set purchased by the Complainant.

 

ii) Pay Rs.1000/- as compensation for deficiency in service.

 

8]      The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs, within a period of 06 weeks from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall pay the said amount of Rs.2700/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase of the mobile set i.e. 06.02.2008, till the date of realization.

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

 

Announced

07.05.2010                                       Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                            

                   

                                                  Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

‘Dutt’

 

 

 






DISTRICT FORUM – II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 1325 OF 2009

 

PRESENT:

 

None.

 

Dated the 07th day of May, 2010

 

O R D E R

 

 

          Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

 

(Madhu Mutneja)

(Lakshman Sharma)

Member

President

 

 

 

 

 

 

                         

 

 


MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBERHONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT ,