BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.61/18.
Date of instt.:12.2.2018.
Date of Decision:26.10.2018
Smt. Minakshi w/o Shri Arvind, r/o Civil Hospital, Quarter No.22, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Gurlove Telecom, Shop No.9, Goal Market, Kaithal.
- Customer Care, Gionee, Opp. Old D.C. Residence, Karnal Road, Kaithal.
- U.T. Electronics P. Ltd., 363/364, 1st Floor, Parag Sales Corporation, Sector-35B, Chandigarh.
- Gionee India P. Ltd., D-I/E-14, Second Floor, Mohan Co-Opeative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.
……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri Jagmal Singh, President.
Shri Rajbir Singh, Member.
Present: Shri R.K. Sharma, Adv. for the complainant.
Opposite Parties ex parte.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that she purchased a phone make Gionee model AI IMEI No.863854031706258 for Rs.20,000/- vide Bill/Invoice No.140 dt. 06.5.2017 from OP No.1. It is further alleged that at the time of said mobile, she was assured that the mobile is one of the best product of the company which contains all the latest application/features and further the same will be satisfied all her needs. Moreover, a warrantee of two year against all defects is/was given at the time of sale of said mobile. It is further alleged that due to her utter surprise, the said mobile could not be working properly and started giving problem automatically switch off within a short span of time of purchase and she took the same to OP No.2 i.e. authorized service centre of OP No.1 in the month of October 2017, within warranty period and OP No.2 deposited the said mobile and returned the same after 2/3 days with the assurance that the defect of mobile was removed and will run smoothly. It is further alleged that after few days, the said problem was came out in mobile, then she visited the office of OP No.2 and OP No.2 said that they are not able to solve that problem, their senior engineer will come in next week. It is further alleged that she again and again visited the office of OP No.2 but OP No.2 gave the same reply. It is further alleged that on 27.1.2018, she again visited the office of OP NO.2and handed over the said mobile to OP NO.2, but OP No.2 issued wrong job sheet and it was written that the battery problem in the said mobile and battery is not covered in warranty. It is further alleged that now the mobile set is in custody of the OP No.2 and they neither returned the mobile nor resolve the problem. It is further alleged that she repeatedly requested the OPs to refund the purchase amount of said mobile, but they refused to accept her request. This way, the OPs are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, initially on 27.3.2018, Shri Vinay Garg, representative appeared on behalf of the opposite parties No.1 to 4. But on 29.05.2018, when the case was fixed for filing reply on behalf of OPs, no one present on behalf of OPs and they were proceeded against ex parte on the same date vide order dt. 29.05.2018.
3. In support of the case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 25.10.2018.
4. We have heard the complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the complainant.
5. From the pleadings and evidence of the complainant, we found that the complainant purchased a phone make Gionee model AI, IMEI No.863854031706258 for Rs.20,000/- from the OP No.1 vide Bill/Invoice No.140 dt. 06.5.2017 Ex.C1.
6. The complainant argued that soon after the purchase of mobile in question, it started giving problem of automatically switch off. It is further argued that she took the same to OP No.2 i.e. authorized service centre of OP No.1 in the month of October 2017, who deposited the mobile and returned the same after 2/3 days with the assurance that the defect of mobile was removed and the same will run smoothly. It is further argued that after few days, the said problem came out in mobile set again, then she visited the office of OP No.2 and OP No.2 said that they are not able to solve that problem and senior engineer of the company will come in next week. It is further argued on 27.01.2018, she again visited the OP No.2 and handed over the mobile to OP No.2. But the OP No.2 issued job sheet by wrongly mentioning therein that there was battery problem in the said mobile and stated that the battery is not covered in warranty. The complainant further argued that now the mobile set is in custody of the OP No.2 and the OP No.2 neither returned the mobile nor resolve the problem of the complainant.
7. To support her case, the complainant produced in her evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A, bill Ex.C1, Job sheet Ex.C2. From the job sheet Ex.C2 issued by the OP No.2, it is clear that in Column Symptom/Issue, it is mentioned that “Battery Problem”. According to the complainant, the OP No.2 has refused to repair the mobile of the complainant on the ground of battery problem. The job sheet Ex.C2 clearly shows that the OP No.2 has mentioned battery problem in the job sheet and if the battery problem was not covered under the warranty, then the OP No.2 should have returned the mobile set instead of retaining the same. The complainant has produced the original job sheet which shows that the mobile set has been retained by the OP NO.2. Moreover, if the mobile set could not be repaired within warranty due to battery problem, the onus to prove the same was upon the OP No.2. But as stated above, initially on 27.3.2018, the representative of OPs appeared on behalf of all the OPs, but on 29.05.2018, when the case was fixed for filing written statement, the OPs opted to be proceeded against ex parte as none appeared on their behalf. So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against OPs. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant purchased the mobile in question on 06.05.2017 and filed the present complaint on 12.2.2018 i.e. within the warranty period. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the mobile set in question was defective one and the OPs failed to resolve the grievance of the complainant. Hence, the OPs are deficient in service.
8. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint ex parte and direct the OPs to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant vide Bill/Invoice No.140 dt. 06.05.2017 Ex.C-1. However, it is hereby made clear that if the said mobile as purchased by the complainant, is not available with the OPs, then the OPs shall refund to the complainant Rs.20,000/- ‘the cost of mobile set. The OPs are also burdened with costs of Rs.2200/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges to the complainant. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.26.10.2018.
(Rajbir Singh). (Jagmal Singh),
Member. President.
Present: Shri R.K. Sharma, Adv. for the complainant.
Opposite Parties ex parte.
Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present complaint is allowed ex parte. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated:26.10.2018. Member. President.
