Punjab

Sangrur

CC/469/2016

Sumit Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

UT Electronics Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Appolojit Singh Kamalpur

15 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.  469

                                                Instituted on:    27.07.2016

                                                Decided on:       15.11.2016

 

Sumit Garg son of Shri Brij Lal Garg, resident of Shop No.13, New Grain Market, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             UT Electronics Pvt. Limited, Registered Office: SCO 363-364, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Authorised Signatory.

2.             Punjab Communication, Near Railway Chowk, Gaushala Road, Sangrur, Authorized service centre of Gionee, through its proprietor/partner.

3.             National Time, Court Road, Sangrur through its proprietor/partner.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Appolojit Singh, Adv.

For OPs                    :                 Exparte.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

             

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.               Shri Sumit Garg, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one mobile phone Gionee  from OP number 3  for Rs.3,000/- vide invoice number 7077 dated 15.07.2016 with one year warranty of the mobile set against any manufacturing defect or poor workmanship. It is further averred in the complaint that from the very date of its purchase, the complainant was shocked to see that the mobile set is accepting only one sim and not responding to the second sim, therefore, the complainant immediately approached the OP number 3 for removal of the defect in the mobile set, but the OP number 2 advised the complainant to approach OP number 2 for the same.  As such, the complainant approached the OP number 2 and who on checking told that the mobile set was activated on 13.6.2016, whereas the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 15.7.2016, as such the question of its activation on 13.6.2016 does not arise at all, as such it is stated that the OP number 3 sold the complainant old mobile set. It is further averred that the OP number 2 also issued job sheet wherein it has been sated that the OP number 3 sold the complainant old mobile set which was activated on 13.6.2016.  It is further averred that thereafter the complainant requested the OPs to replace the mobile set with a new one, but all in vain.  Thus, alleging   deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund the purchase price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.3,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.               Record shows that OPs i.e. OPs number 1  and 3 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 1 and 3 were proceeded exparte. But, later on OP number 2 was also proceeded exparte.

 

3.               The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill dated 15.7.2015, Ex.C-3 copy of activation report/job card and closed evidence. No evidence has been produced on record by any of the OPs.

4.               We have carefully perused the complaint and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

5.                 Ex.C-2 is the copy of the invoice issued by OP number 3 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.3,000/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question on 15.7.2016 and availed the services of the OP number 3, which has been manufactured by OP number 1, but all the Ops did not appear despite service and chose to remain exparte.

6.               In the present case, the complainant has alleged that the OP number 3 supplied the complainant the defective and used mobile set which was earlier used on 13.6.2016, whereas the mobile in question was sold to the complainant vide bill number 7077 dated 15.7.2016 i.e. after a period of about 32 days of its use.   This fact is further supported by the complainant by his own affidavit Ex.C-1 and  the same is also evident from the copy of job sheet, Ex.C-3  issued by OP number 2, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the mobile set bearing IMEI number 86739902020575666 was activated on 13 June 2016.  Now, it is clearly established on the record by the complainant that the OP number 3 sold the complainant the activated mobile set on 13.6.2016, whereas the mobile set was sold on 15.7.2016, as is evident from the copy of job sheet issued by OP number 2.  We may mention that all the Ops chose to remain exparte and did not appear to deny the allegations of the complainant.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the OP number 3 sold the complainant the old used and defective mobile set on 15.7.2016 by charging Rs.3000/- being the cost of the new mobile set. It is further worth mentioning here that even during the present proceedings, the OP number 3 even did not offer the complainant a new mobile set against the defective old mobile set. As such, we further feel that the OP number 3 is not only negligent and deficient in service, but has also indulged in unfair trade practice by selling the old and used mobile set in place of new one.

7.               In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OP number 3 to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- being the cost of the mobile set along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 27.07.2016 till realisation. However, the OP number 3 is at liberty to take back the old mobile set along with all its accessories. The OP number 3 shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, harassment and an amount of Rs.2000/- on account of  litigation expenses.

8.               This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                November 15, 2016.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                       

                                                     (Sarita Garg)

                                                         Member