Complaint Case No. 212/2009

Date of Institution 9-7-2009

Date of Decision 29-12-2009


Rajesh Kumar son of late Sh.Thakur Dass Village Derdu, Post Office Kapahi, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P.

…Complainant

V/S

1. Gopal Kumar Sharma son of Sh. Dhanjay Sharma NH-21 Sharma Music Palace Bhawan Dass Market Bhojpur ,Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P.

2. Kiran Watch Co. through its Proprietor Sh. Suleman Ansari son of Sh.Sher Mohamad Bhojpur Bazar, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

3. Ashok Patel Managing Director Ajanta India Ltd Ajanta Industrial Estate Rajkot Highway Marbi, Gujrat



For the complainant Sh. Deepak Kumar , advocate

Opposite parties Exparte


Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ORDER.

This order shall dispose of a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) instituted by the complainant against the opposite parties . Brief facts of the complaint as set up by the complainant are that on 17-4-2008 he purchased mobile set of Ajanta Quartz Model No.A-1900 with IMEI No.374169781542726 in the sum of RS.1625/- from the opposite party No.1 but the bill was not given by the opposite party No.1 who is employer of the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 is the authorized dealer of Ajanta Mobile and it had appointed opposite party No.1 as an employee for sale of Ajanta Mobiles . The complainant was issued self signed warranty ward by the opposite party No.1 on 17-4-2008 which is Annexure C-1 . At the time of purchase the complainant was told by the opposite party No.1 that the mobile was in a very good condition and would not make any trouble but the same started creating problems in hearing and calling and he approached the opposite party No.1 for the change of the mobile as the same was in warranty period The complainant approached time and again the opposite party No.1 to replace or to repair the mobile phone as he was facing hardship then mobile set was received by the opposite party No.1 for replacement . After some days, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 for taking replaced set but he was refused and then complainant went to the opposite party No.1 who told that set had been returned by the opposite party No.2 on 27-4-2009 without repair . The complainant alleged that now the opposite party No.1 had refused to replace the mobile . The complainant contacted the opposite party No.3 and lastly on 29-5-2009 sent a complaint through speed post against the distributor and Sales Manager to the opposite party No.3 but of no avail With these allegations the complainant had sought direction to the opposite parties to refund the price of mobile i.e. Rs.1625/- alongwith interest , or to direct the opposite party to replace the mobile phone with new mobile . Apart from this , compensation of Rs.50,000/- for negligence and deficient service had also been claimed besides cost of complaint to the tune of Rs.5000/-.

2. The opposite parties were duly served but failed to contest the complaint and were proceeded against exparte .

3. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record. The case of the

complainant is that on 17-4-2008 he purchased mobile set of Ajanta Quartz Model No.A-1900 with IMEI No.374169781542726 in the sum of Rs.1625/- from the opposite party No.1 who is employee of the opposite party No.2 and the opposite party No.2 is the dealer of Ajanta Quartz mobile . According to the complainant he was given warranty card by the opposite party No.1 on 17-4-2008 with the assurance that the copy of warranty card can be used as copy of bill which is annexure C-1. Further case of the complainant is that he was assured at the time of purchase of the mobile that it was in a very good condition and would not make any trouble but the same started creating problem in hearing and calling and the defect was notified to the opposite party No.1 and requested for the change of the mobile as the same was within the warranty period . The mobile set was received by the opposite party No.1 on 17-4-2009 for repair which was sent to the opposite party No.2 who was the dealer of the same but when he approached the opposite party No.2 for replacement /repair of mobile hand set, same was declined and he was threatened by the opposite party No.2 and he used vulgar language . Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 who told that the opposite party No.2 had returned the mobile set without repair as per statement Annexure C-3. The complainant in support of his allegations made in the complaint had adduced in evidence warranty card issued by the opposite party No.1 which reflects that one year warranty has been provided to the mobile hand set model No.A-1900 purchased by the complainant which is annexure C-1 .Apart from this , the complainant had adduced in evidence receipts Annexure C-2 dated 17-4-2009 and Annexure C-4 dated 10-6-2009 issued by the opposite party No.2 which indicates that the mobile set was received for repair by the opposite party No.2 from the opposite party No.1. Annexure C-3 is a document dated 10-6-2009 written by the opposite party No.1 whereby he has admitted that he had received the mobile hand set in question from the complainant during the warranty period and he had left the same for repair with the opposite party No.2 who had had returned the same un-repaired on 27-5-2009 on the ground that he could not repair the same . It has further been mentioned that thereafter the mobile hand set remained with him and he again had given the same for repair to the opposite party No.2 . Not only this , Annexure C-5 has also been pressed into service which is a complaint filed by the complainant with the opposite party No.3 i.e. the manufacturer . Wrapper of the mobile hand set had also been produced in evidence which shows that the price of the mobile hand set is Rs.1625/-.The opposite parties have failed to contest the complaint and were proceeded against exparte which shows that they have nothing to say in the matter except to admit the averments made in the complaint. As discussed above, the opposite parties have not contested the complaint , therefore , we have no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant which is duly supported by means of his affidavit that the set is defective one and it has developed defect during the warranty period and the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have failed to repair it. Therefore , we hold that the opposite parties No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to replace the set with new one .



4 In view of above discussion , the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed either to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant or to refund its price i.e. Rs.1625/- within a period of 30 days from today failing which to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

5 Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per Rules.

6 File, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.