STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Nokia Care Centre, SCO No.2433-34, 2^nd Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through Sh.Manjit Singh.

                                .…Appellant/Opposite Party No.2

                                Vs.

1.     Vijay Chintaman Sanawane, C-2, Imtech Quarters, Sector 39-A, Chandigarh.

--Respondent/complainant  

2.     Chawla Brothers, SCO No.1055, Sector 22-
C, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.

…. Respondent/Opposite Party No.1

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.

                            --

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.                    This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.03.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant (now respondent No.1) as under:-

        “As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the OPs are directed jointly and severally to pay Rs.1500/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment and costs of litigation. This order be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OPs shall be liable to refund the awarded amount along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, till its realization”.

2.                    The facts, in brief, are that, the complainant purchased mobile handset Nokia X-6 IMEI 354855042838960 from Opposite Party No.1 on 5.11.2010 for a sum of Rs.13,300/-. It was stated that the USB socket of the mobile set came off and the said defect was brought to the notice of Opposite Party No.2, which declined to repair/replace the same. The complainant also approached Opposite Party No.1, which too was reluctant to repair or replace the handset. It was further stated that the USB socket came off due to routine transfer of music, so the refusal of the Opposite Parties to entertain his request to repair/replace the mobile set without any plausible explanation, amounted to deficiency in service on their part. 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.

3.                    Opposite Party No.1 did not appear despite due service, hence it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.01.2012.

4.                    In its written reply, Opposite Party No.2 stated that the complainant approached it, for the repair of handset. It was further stated that the mobile was physically damaged, so Opposite Party No.2, had no liability to repair under the terms and conditions of warranty. The said fact was brought to the notice of the complainant, but he refused to get the mobile set repaired on payment basis. It was further stated that the USB socket was physically damaged and it came off due to some external force or on account of the data cable having been wrongly inserted, in the port. It was further stated that, Opposite Party No.2, was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

5.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.                    After hearing the complainant, in person, the Counsel for Opposite Party No.2, and on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, partly allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

7.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2.

8.                    We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.                    The Counsel for appellant/Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the complainant used to transfer music and data through data cable and after 10 months of its use, the USB socket of the mobile came off, which was not a manufacturing defect, and the same, being physical damage, was not covered under the terms and conditions of warranty. He further submitted that despite this the mobile, in question, was repaired.   He further submitted that the order of the District Forum awarding compensation to the complainant, being erroneous and illegal, is liable to be set aside.  However, we do not find any force in this submission because the appellant had failed to adduce any documentary evidence in the shape of affidavit/report of its service engineer to establish that the alleged damage to the mobile, in question, was the result of the physical damage. Otherwise also, it was the bounden duty of the Opposite Parties, to repair the mobile within the warranty period.  Similarly, there is no force, in the averment of the appellant that the said mobile was repaired on the directions of the District Forum because from the perusal of zimini order, it is evident that the case was put up before the Lok Adalat on 27.01.2012 and the appellant agreed to repair the same. Somehow, the efforts made by the Lok Adalat, could not be fructified as the compromise could not be arrived at between the parties. The complainant was insisting that the mobile set was not repaired by the Opposite Parties within the warranty period due to which he suffered mental agony and harassment and, therefore, he was compelled to file the complaint before the District Forum, so he was entitled to compensation. In our considered view, taking all these facts into consideration, the District Forum, rightly awarded the compensation on this count.  The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

10.                 The order, passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

11.                 For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed in limine, with no order, as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

12.                  Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

13.                 The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                                                                      Sd/-

24.04.2012                                        [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

                                                                                                                        Sd/-                             [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER

cmg