Complaint No.316/19.11.2009

Decided on : 13.1.2010.


Sh. Jaswant Singh S/o Sh. Mithu Singh, resident of Ward No.17, Mansa Near Lions Club Chuglighar, Tehsil and District Mansa.

..... Complainant.

VERSUS


1. Spice Mobile Ltd., D-1, Sector-3, Noiada 201301(UP), through its concern Officer.

2. Shiva Communications, Gurudwara Chowk, Mansa, Tehsil and District Mansa, Spice Telecom, through its Proprietor.

..... Opposite Parties.


Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

.....

Present: Sh. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Advocate counsel for the complainant.

OPs. Exparte.

Quorum: Sh.George, President.

Sh.Sarat Chander, Member.

Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member.


ORDER:-

Sh.George, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) against the opposite party with the allegations that he purchased a Mobile Set Phone of spice Company of model No.353482029569863 from OP No.2 , who is authorised franchise of OP No.1 for a consideration of Rs. 6300/- with one year warranty, vide bill No.821 dated 20.9.2008. After

some days of its purchase, the said mobile set caused many troubles and it was not functioning properly as it was having connection problem. It is pleaded that the fault was brought to the notice of OP No.2, who took the mobile set and after 2 days he returned with assurance that every fault of mobile has been rectified and charged a sum of Rs. 200/-. The complainant, facing problem in using the mobile, therefore, he again approached the OP No.2. OP No.2 took the mobile set from him and asked to come after a week, as the said mobile set was required to be sent to care center of OP No.1. After a week OP No.2 returned the set and charged Rs. 500/- with assurance that no problem will arise in future and set is all right,as it has been rectified properly. It is further pleaded that mobile set again started giving same type of problem, therefore, he visited OP No.2 again, but OP No.2 did not hear the genuine request of complainant and asked the complainant to go in care center of OP No.1 for rectification of the defects. Accordingly, he visited twice the care center of the OP No.1 but nobody was ready to listen to his complaint. Thereafter, he served a legal notice upon the OP No.1, but he received no response and as such, he per force has to file the present complaint for replacement of his defective mobile set, payment of compensation and cost.

2. After admission of the complaint both the OPs were issued notice, both the OPs despite due service did not appear to contest the complaint and therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.

3. Complainant led exparte evidence he filed his own affidavit Ext. C-1 in support of his complaint brought on the record copy of legal notice Ext.C-2 dated 7.9.209 send to OP No.1 vide postal receipt Ext.C-3 and retail invoice dated 20.9.2008 by which complainant purchased the Hand Set Mobile from OP No.2 for a consideration of Rs. 6300/- Ext. C-4.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the entire record of the case carefully.

5. The evidence brought on record by the complainant remained unchallenged and unrebutted as both the OPs despite their due service did not put their appearance before this Forum to contest the complaint. It is proved on the record from the evidence of the complainant that complainant purchased a Mobile Hand Set bearing No.353482029569863, for a consideration of Rs. 6300/- on 20.9.2008, as per sale invoice exhibit C-4. As per the evidence of the complainant, the said mobile set started troubling the complainant immediately after purchase of the same. The matter was reported to OP No.2 and he charged an amount of Rs. 200/- from the complainant and told him that the fault has been removed. However, within short time the Mobile Set again started troubling the complainant, the complainant took the Mobile Set to Op No.2. OP No.2 retained the same and told the complainant that Mobile Set is required to be sent to the Care Center of the Spice Company and therefore, he contact him after a week of time. OP No.2 returned the Hand Set after a week and he charged another amount of Rs. 500/- from the complainant. However, the Mobile Set again started giving trouble to the complainant, as it was not properly functioning. When he approached to OP No.2, he did not listen to, his genuinen request, and therefore, the complainant had to visit twice the Care Center of Spice Company, but even the Care Center of the Spice Company and OP No.1 did not care to remove the fault or listen to the complaint. The complainant had sent legal notice exhibit C-2 to Op No.1 vide postal receipt exhibit C-3, but he not receive reply from OP No.1. Therefore, he had filed the present complaint.

4. From the facts and circumstances, as has been referred to here in above it is proved on record that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.6300/- for the purchase of Mobile Set from OP No.2, manufactured by OP No.1, but the Mobile Set developed faults within short time within warranty period of one year and complainant when reported the matter to

OP No.2, he charged firstly, an amount of Rs. 200/- from the complainant and second time charged an amount of Rs. 500/- but the fault remained as such, and when complainant reported the matter to Op No.2 verbally and OP No.1 through registered post none of the OPs have taken the trouble to render required service to the complainant.

5. That the entire facts and circumstances, as has been referred to here in above, reveals that the OPs despite receiving the handsome sale price and also repair charges of Rs, 700/- they failed to render required service, as a service provider to the complainant and as such, both the OPs are liable to replace jointly and severally the faulty Hand Set of the complainant or in the alternative to refund the amount of Rs. 6300/- alongwith an amount of Rs. 700/-which was received by OP No.2 for removing the fault with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of purchase of the Hand Set till the entire payment is made.

6. That the facts and circumstances of the case reveals that the complainant has been put to unnecessary mental tension, agony, harassment and inconvenience due to act and conduct of both the OPs and therefore, both the OPs are also liable to pay jointly and severally compensation to the complainant, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, we assess a sum of Rs. 5000/-.

7. That the complainant has been forced to file the present complaint due to the adamant attitude and conduct of both the OPs and therefore, they are also liable to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 3000/-.

8. Both the OPs are be liable to comply this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order.

9. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record.