Complaint No. 454/17.7.2008.

Date of order: 15.12.2009

Keshav minor son of Sh. Avtar Krishan through his father, natural guardian and next friend Sh. Avtar Krishan resident of House No. B-33-1146, St. No.6, New Ashok Nagar-C, P.O. Netaji Nagar, Salem Tabri, Ludhiana.

(Complainant)
Vs.
1. M/s N.K. Electronics, Shop no.-A-1, Mandir Market, Mata Rani Chowk, Ludhiana.

2. M/s Harjeeo Corporation authorised Service Centre of Sony Ericson,246, B-x, Model Town Extension near Atta Chaki, Ludhiana.

3. M/s Sangram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. CCI Complex, Godown, 4 Plot S/5, Kalamboll navi, Mumbai-410 218

(Opposite parties)

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Quorum:

Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.

Smt. Priti Malhotra, Member.

Present :

Sh. H.P. Bhardwaj Advocate for the complainant.

OP No.1, 2 & 3 ex-parte.

O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1. Complainant (a minor) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, through his next friend and father for compensation of Rs. 40,000/- and to supply him a new mobile phone in place of defective mobile phone sold to him by the opposite party No.1.

2. It is pleaded that complainant on 27.8.2007 vide invoice no. 20144 purchased mobile hand set no. K 7501 for Rs.8216/- from the opposite party no.1, dealer of opposite party no.2 authorised service station of manufacturer-OP No.3. After purchase, phone was found defective and not working properly. Though , at the time of sale, opposite party had told that if in future phone found not working to his satisfaction, he could exchange it with another set. It was on such promise that hand set purchased, which was found defective from the very beginning. So, shop of opposite party no.1 was visited to replace the defective hand set with new one. Mobile hand set was sent by opposite party no.1 to opposite party no.2 for removing defect and thereafter visited opposite party no.1 repeatedly for replacement of the hand set. Subsequently, opposite party no.2 intimated him by sending letter of collecting another hand set from the shop of opposite party no.1, but opposite party no.1 refused to honour the mandate. Now they are compelling the complainant to receive the old hand set. Such act on the part of opposite party is claimed to be deficiency in service.

3. None of the opposite parties contested the complaint and as such are being proceeded ex-parte.

4. Complainant in support of his case has tendered his affidavit and documents.

5. We have heard the arguments addressed by ld. counsel for the parties, gone through file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

6. Purchase of Sony Ericson hand set for Rs. 8216/- is proved by the complainant by placing on the record retail invoice Ex.C.1 dated 27.8.20076. Affidavit Ex.CW1/A of the complainant reveals that opposite party no.1 while selling the hand set had assured that in case of any defect in the mobile hand set, it can be replaced. From the letter Ex.C.2 of March 2008 of opposite party no.2 to the complainant shows that defective hand set was handed over by the complainant to opposite party no.1, who sent it to service centre-OP No.2. The said letter reads as under:

“As per the mail received from your end regarding the Mobile set K-7501 Job Sheet no. SES08HJC10234 received the set with No Power Up.

After speaking to Mr. Amarjeet Singh you has asked for a new set which Mr. Amarjeet had spinet at Chandigarh office and has requested to give time till Saturday when new set will be given to you and you had agreed for the same and when contracted on Monday and Tuesday to tell you that your set is ready and can be collected any time from our service centre.

Now your are asking for a Brand New sealed packed set which is only possible if the set is not working after opening the seal or within 48 hours of purchase.

Once again we would request you to please collect your set from our Service Centre.”

7. It is apparent from this letter Ex.C2 that time was taken by opposite party for replacement of hand set of the complainant till Saturday. But subsequently, officials of the opposite party shifted stand and required the complainant to collect old hand set after repair from the service centre.

8. Not satisfied with response of opposite party, complainant took up the matter with Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of India, who also wrote letter Ex.C.3 to opposite party no.2.

9. So, it appears and proves that opposite party once agreed to replace the defective hand set of the complainant with new one but subsequently refused to do so. In such circumstances, opposite parties certainly would be guilty of resorting to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

10. Hence, this complaint is allowed and as a result we direct the opposite parties to provide a new mobile hand set no. K-7501 of the value of Rs.8216/- to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of copy of the order, which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.