Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/722/2014

Kuljit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Service Manager, Blackberry Mobile Service Centre - Opp.Party(s)

In person

12 Oct 2015

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/722 /2014
Date  of  Institution	:	4 /11 /2014
Date   of   Decision	:	12/10/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Kuljit Singh ca/o Hexamind Technologies C-84, Industrial Area, Phase-7, Mohali, Punjab 160002.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1.       Blackberry India Pvt. Ltd. (Service Centre) SCO No.66 & 67, 2^nd Floor, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh, through its  Service Manager.

2.       Blackberry India Pvt. Ltd. RIM Delhi, Cyber Terraces, Level 18, Building No.5, Tower A, DLF PH-3, Gurgaon-122002 through its Managing Director.  

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SH. P.L. AHUJA                                  PRESIDENT

                   MRS.SURJEET KAUR                       MEMBER

                   SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OP No.1	:	exparte
For OP No.2	:	Sh. Amit Arora, Advocate.

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a Blackberry 9790 handset manufactured by OP No.2 in the month of July, 2013 with a warranty of 18 months for a  sum of Rs.20,000/-. It has been alleged that the said handset started giving problem within a year from the date of its purchase. The OS restarting function of the phone did not work efficiently. The complainant submitted the phone with OP No.1 but after a few days again its keypad stared giving problem. The complainant again submitted the handset with OP No.1, who informed the complainant that since there was liquid damage, the phone could not be repaired under warranty.  It has further been alleged that the handset was mishandled by the authorities of OP No.1 resultantly its touch stopped working though it was in perfect condition at the time of submitting the same. It has further been stated that the information regarding liquid damage was not given to the complainant at the time of submitting the handset. Despite several requests by the complainant to the OPs to repair the set under warranty they did not do so. It has further been stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties amount to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

2.                 Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, since nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 5.02.2015.
3.           Opposite Party No.2,  appeared through Sh. Amit Arora, Advocate initially and filed reply to the original complaint taking stand therein that the complainant before approaching the authorized service centre of Opposite Party No.2 for the first time used the mobile, in question, properly without any problem whatsoever and the alleged problem was rectified. Thereafter on second time  on 16.7.2014 when the complainant again visited  the service centre, it was found that the handset was damaged by ingress of liquid. According to terms and conditions of the warranty, damage to the handset on account of liquid ingression would render the warranty void. As such there was no deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.2 and the handset was damaged due to mishandling of the complainant.
4.           However, on 4.9.2015 none came present on behalf of  OP No.2  to file reply to the amended complaint hence, Opposite Party No.2, was proceeded against exparte on 4.9.2015.

5.          Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

6.          We have heard the complainant in person, counsel for Opposite Party No.2 and have perused the record carefully.

7.          In the present case, the averments of the complaint have gone unrebutted in the absence of the Opposite Party No.1 who was duly served and preferred neither to appear in person, nor through its Counsel.

8.           Although Opposite Party No.2 filed its reply to the original complaint, yet it was proceeded exparte on 4.9.2015 as it failed to file reply to the amended complaint.

9.          The stand of Opposite Party No.2 that the damage to the phone was due to ingress of water, does not stand merit as the phone was submitted by the complainant on 16.7.2014, and the Opposite Party No.1 had failed to inform the complainant the same at the time of deposit of phone, rather informed the same after two days. We have also perused the service sheet Annexure II at page 9 dated 16.7.2014 where Opposite Party No.1 has clearly mentioned that the phone is under warranty & expected return date is 18.7.2014.  The Opposite Party No.1 neither rectified the defect in the mobile handset despite repeated endeavors, nor did it replace the defective handset with a new one.    

10.          Hence, it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant in visiting the Authorized Service Centre (Opposite Party No.1) for a number of times, to get his mobile handset repaired, is also writ large. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Parties.

 

11.          In the light of above observations, the present complaint succeeds against the Opposite Parties. The same is allowed. We direct the Opposite Parties:- 

 

[a]     To repair the defective mobile handset of the Complainant and hand it over to the Complainant, in perfect working order, with an extension of warranty for the period for which phone was non-functional during the warranty period. In the event of failure to comply with the above direction, Opposite Parties shall pay the price of the phone i.e. Rs.19,999/-

 

[b]     To Pay Rs.5,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c]        To Pay Rs.4, 000/- towards costs of litigation;

 

 

                  

12.          This order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; failing which, they shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, besides payment of cost.

 

13.          The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

12 October, 2015                                                                                                                                                                                                   sd/-

 (P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 

ont-size:14.0pt;font-family:Consolas;mso-bidi-font-family:Arial; position:relative;top:-3.0pt;mso-text-raise:3.0pt;letter-spacing:1.0pt'> (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

 

MEMBER