Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Present Appeal targets the Order dated 08-03-2017, passed by the Ld. District Forum, Unit-I (North) in CC/357/2013, whereof the complaint case has been allowed.

Very briefly, case of the Complainant is that, ever since he purchased the subject mobile handset from the OP No. 3 on 10-12-2012, the same started malfunctioning at regular intervals and despite repeated repairing of the handset, there was no improvement to the situation.  Therefore, he asked the OP No. 1 to replace the defective handset with a new one.  Although they agreed to handover a new handset; they were quite evasive in the matter of extended warranty period and 3-months free subscription from Nokia Music Stores.  Therefore, he refused to accept the handset which was wrapped in a pouch bag instead of a sealed pack.  As the OP No. 1 was not ready to give him a new handset in a sealed pack, he demanded refund of the price of the handset, which too was not acceptable to them.  Therefore, the complaint case was filed.

As the OPs did not contest the case, it was decided ex parte.

Decision with reasons

Heard both sides in the matter and perused the documents on record.

When similar problem in respect of any goods resurfaces every now and then despite repeated repairing, it is very much indicative of the fact that the inherent defect of the handset is beyond repairing. 

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 could not offer any satisfactory explanation regarding their abrupt failure to fix the problem of the mobile handset of the Appellant permanently.  In my considered opinion, therefore, the complaint case was rightly allowed by the Ld. District Forum.

The Ld. District Forum vide its impugned order directed the Respondent No. 1 to refund the price of the handset to the Appellant.  It appears from the petition of complaint (page no. 7) that the Appellant himself demanded refund of full price of the handset from the Respondent No. 1 when it refused to provide new handset in a sealed pack.  Thus, while one of the Appellant’s own demand has been approved by the Ld. District Forum, the rationale of moving this Appeal is not understood. 

In fact, during the course of hearing, Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 expressed their inability to accede to the prayer of the Appellant to handover a new handset in sealed cover citing company policy. 

Considering all aspects, I find no infirmity with the impugned order and therefore, any sort of intervention with the same is totally uncalled for.

The Appeal, thus, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed on contest against the Respondent No. 1 without any cost.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.