BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.226 of 2015 Date of Institution : 15.12.2015
Date of Decision : 23.2.2017.
Sandeep Kumar son of Shri Daulat Ram, resident of Dhani Dhaban, Distt. Hanumangarh, now doing job in Distt. Jail, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Unique Sales Corporation through its Authorized person/ Incharge, Opp. Head Post Office, Sirsa.
- Service Zone, Customer Care Centre, Gionee Manufacturing company, through its Incharge Office at Shop No.89, 1st Floor, Bishnoi Market, Near Aggarsain Chowk, Sirsa (Haryana).
- Gionee Syntech Technology Pvt. Ltd, E-9, Block Number B-1, Ground Floor, Mohan Cooperative, Industrial Estates, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its Director/ M.D/ Authorized/ Responsible person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA …………………PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Shiv Karan , Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. V.S. Sihag, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite parties no.2 & 3 already exparte.
ORDER
The case of the complainant is that he purchased one mobile set of Gionee company model V4s from opposite party no.1 being authorized dealer of op no.3 against cash payment of Rs.9500/- vide invoice No.18131 dated 20.1.2015 with warranty of one year. It is further averred that just after few months of its purchase, the said mobile set started creating problem of hanging automatically as well as major problem of internet and also suffered problem of automatic off and on. There was also problem of non PC connectivity and as such on account of these problems in the mobile set, the same rendered useless. The complainant approached the op no.1 and complained about the problems in the mobile set. The op no.1 after thorough checking of mobile found the same defects as told by complainant and admitted the said problem on account of manufacturing defect. But the op no.1 put off the grievance of complainant by simply saying that it is the matter of customer care centre/ op no.2 and company i.e. op no.3 and he himself made complaint at the toll free number of op no.3 and also stated that he would refer the grievance of complainant at the e-mail address of op no.3 and within very short period, he would get redressed his grievance. However, after keeping the mobile set with him for two/three days, the op no.1 out of his cleverness and committing unfair trade practice forwarded him to op no.2. The op no.2 also kept the mobile and gave him assurance that he would get it replaced from the company within a week and same was kept vide job sheet dated 17.7.2015 and when after lapse of one week, he again approached the op no.2 and demanded the new set, then op no.2 asked him to visit after 10 days on the assurance to get it checked from the engineer of the company. The op no.2 also issued said job sheet noting the defect of internet problem only and not mentioned the problem of hanging. On his protest in this regard, op no.2 by using buttering language stated that they would definitely get the mobile set replaced or get refund the cost of the mobile. After that he took number of rounds to ops no.1 & 2 but all in vain. It is further averred that in the month of August, 2015, the ops refused to do anything stating that there is major manufacturing defect in the mobile set which cannot be removed in any way and also refused to compensate him and handed over the mobile set to him. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon ops but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement and denied the contents of complaint in toto. It has been submitted that complainant after purchase of mobile never approached op no.1 with any alleged problem. The op no.1 is only the authorized dealer of op no.3 and except sale of the mobile sets manufactured by op no.3 there is no other duty with him to perform.
3. Initially, ops no.2 & 3 appeared through counsel but did not file written statement after availing several opportunities including last opportunity and on 17.8.2016 their right to file written statement was closed. On 13.2.2017 none appeared on behalf of ops no.2 & 3 and ultimately they were proceeded against exparte.
4. By way of evidence, complainant produced bill Ex.PW1/A, copy of job sheet Ex.PW2/A, legal notice Ex.PW3/A, postal receipt Ex.PW4/A. On the other hand, op no.1 produced affidavit Ex.R1.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant has purchased the mobile set in question from the opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.9500/- on 20.1.2015 as is evident from copy of bill Ex.PW1/A. The complainant is alleging above said defects in the mobile in question within warranty period and has also produced copy of job sheet dated 17.7.2015 in which problem of internet is mentioned. The opposite parties are liable either to repair the mobile in question and to make it defect free or to replace it with a new one. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite parties, to repair the mobile set in question and to make it in properly working condition after replacement of defective parts, if any free costs. In case the mobile is not repairable, then the ops will replace it with a new one. This order should be complied by all the ops jointly and severally within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is directed to hand over the set in question to ops immediately against proper receipt. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:23.2.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Member Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
