Complaint Case No :1369 of 2009

Date of Institution : 01.10.2009

Date of Decision : 11.11.2009


Baljeet Singh s/o S. Satnam Singh, #24, Police Complex, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

Anmol Watches & Electronics Pvt. Ltd., SCO No. 1043, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Party


CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER
Argued by:Complainant in person.

OP ex-parte.

PER DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL, MEMBER

Concisely put, the Complainant purchased a Slid Nokia 6500S-1 SL IDE Black/Silver Mobile handset on 3.10.2008 from OP for Rs.13,090/-. It was alleged that just after seven and half months’ time, the said set started giving problems, which was duly reported to the Nokia Care Centre, SCO No. 2901-02, Sec.22-C, Chandigarh. They tried their level best to remove the defects and even sent the handset to Delhi for the purpose, but all in vain. Hence this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OP amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2] Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OP, but inspite of due service, none has turned up and therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.

3] Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

4] We have heard the Complainant in person and have also perused the record.

5] The Complainant has produced Annexure C-1 to prove that he purchased the handset in question on 3.10.2008 from the OP. The grouse of the Complainant is that the mobile set became defective after 7 months of its purchase and the fault was reported to Nokia Care, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, whose Engineer, on opening set, detected the problem of network. It is argued that thereafter, even the set was sent to Delhi thrice by the Nokia Care Centre for rectification of the defects, but they failed to rectify the same. His contention is that till date he is waiting for the return of his handset, which was sent by the Nokia Care to Delhi. The set is having one year warranty commencing from 3.10.2008 to 2.10.2009.

6] Needless to mention that the set was purchased on 3.10.2008 and it became defective after a few months of its purchase, so the defect occurred within the warranty period provided on the handset and in fact, Annexure C-1 also shows that it was under warranty period. OP was, therefore, bound to get it repaired, which it failed to do and rather, thrust with unwanted litigation on the Complainant. Moreover, the OP has not controverted any of these contentions, as nobody appeared for it after service and was proceeded against exparte. It shows that the OP has nothing to say against the claim made by the Complainant.

7] In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly, allowed. The OP is directed to repair the mobile handset in question within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and return the same to the Complainant by making it functional to his satisfaction, after effecting necessary repairs, without charging anything, as the handset was under the warranty period. The OP shall also pay Rs.550/- as compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mental agony suffered by the Complainant along with Rs.550/- towards costs of litigation to the Complainant within the aforesaid period, failing which, OP would also be liable to refund Rs.13,090/- the cost price of the mobile set, along with interest @12% per annum on the entire amount of Rs.14,190/- since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 01.10.2009, till the amount is actually paid to the Complainant.

Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.