DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.550 of 13-12-2013

Decided on 21-03-2014

Vijay Singh aged about 40 years S/o Inqlab Singh R/o Basti No.3, Beer Talab, Bathinda, Tehsil & District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Sonu Telecom & Mobile Repair, Opp. Street No.11, Ajit Road, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Owner.

2.Lali Mobile Care, Amrik Singh Road, Near Gole Diggi, Bathinda, through its Authorized Representative.

3.ZTE.B. Bus Towers, 6 Floor, DLF Shamber City Gurgaon, through its Managing Director.

.......Opposite parties

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

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Pardeep Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Vinay, Proprietor of the opposite party No.1.

Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 ex-parte.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that on the assurance of the opposite party No.1, he purchased one mobile handset of ZTE 6700 model bearing IMEI/Batch No.RZTCDC355317040304742 for Rs.6600/- vide bill No.680 dated 12.1.2013 from the opposite party No.1, manufactured by the opposite party No.3 with one year warranty. The abovesaid mobile handset was not working since the date of its purchase as at the time of the start of its functioning, it became disconnected within few seconds without completion of call and there were many unwanted lines on its screen, which create difficulties for the complainant to use it. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and requested it to replace the abovesaid mobile handset with new one, it asked him to approach the opposite party No.2, the authorized service centre of the opposite party No.3. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on dated 25.9.2013, it after checking the abovesaid mobile handset reported that there is some manufacturing defect in it and it became 'Dead' and told him that it would be repaired, not be replaced. The opposite party No.2 took the mobile handset in question in its custody and issued him a job sheet and asked the complainant to come after 2 days. Thereafter the complainant approached number of times to the opposite party No.2 to collect his mobile handset, but it misbehaved with him and used the un-parliament language and asked him to collect his mobile handset in the same condition by saying that there is manufacturing defect in it as the opposite party No.2 is unable to remove the defect in it. Hence the present complaint filed by the complainant to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties either to replace the abovesaid mobile handset with new one or to refund its price alongwith interest, cost and compensation.

2. The opposite party No.1 after appearing before this Forum has filed its written statement and pleaded that the complainant has purchased the mobile handset in question as per his wish and choice with one year warranty from the date of its purchase that is given on behalf of the opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.1 has not allured the complainant to purchase the abovesaid mobile handset. The opposite party No.1 never promised the complainant for the replacement of the mobile handset in question in case of any defect, rather it has clearly informed him that the warranty of one year on the abovesaid mobile handset be given by the opposite party No.3 from the date of its purchase.

3. Notice by hand/dasti has been sent to the opposite party No.2 that has been received by one Sagar on dated 2.1.2014 and registered notice has been sent to the opposite party No.3 on dated 24.1.2014 vide postal receipt No.A RP295393226IN, but despite receiving the summons, none appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 before this Forum, hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against them.

4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

6. Admittedly, the complainant purchased one mobile handset of ZTE 6700 model bearing IMEI/Batch No.RZTCDC355317040304742 for Rs.6600/- vide bill No.680 dated 12.1.2013 from the opposite party No.1, manufactured by the opposite party No.3 with one year warranty.

7. The abovesaid mobile handset became defective soon after its purchase as at the time of the start of its functioning, it became disconnected within few seconds without completion of call and there were many unwanted lines on its screen, which create difficulties for the complainant to use it. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and requested it to replace the abovesaid mobile handset with new one, it asked him to approach the opposite party No.2, the authorized service centre of the opposite party No.3. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on dated 25.9.2013, it asked him that there is some manufacturing defect in the mobile handset in question and it has become 'Dead' and issued him a job sheet and asked him to come after 2 days.

8. On the other hand the submission of the opposite party No.1 is that the complainant has purchased the mobile handset in question as per his wish and choice with one year warranty from the date of its purchase that is given on behalf of the opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.1 further submitted that in case of any repair or defect, the liability is of the manufacturing company.

9. A perusal of record placed on file shows that in the job sheet No.3607 dated 25.9.2013, Ex.C2, the problem is regarding 'Handset Dead', the date of purchase of the mobile handset in question is 12.1.2013, thus the problem has occurred in the abovesaid mobile handset after the use of 8 months. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have failed to appear before this Forum, they have intentionally not appeared before this Forum just to shed their liability, it seems that the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 were fully aware about the condition of the mobile handset in question as the complainant has deposited the abovesaid mobile handset with the opposite party No.2 i.e. authorized service centre of the opposite party No.3. The job sheet, Ex.C2, clearly shows that the abovesaid mobile handset was 'Dead'. The mobile handset in question is in the warranty period, thus if it would have been in the repairable condition, the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 must have repaired it and sent it back to the complainant, but there is no such document placed on file by the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 to show that the abovesaid mobile handset was in the repairable condition, thus this confirms the version of the complainant that his mobile handset was not working properly since the date of its purchase as there was problem regarding its functioning as at the time of the start of its functioning, it became disconnected within few seconds without completion of call and there were many unwanted lines on its screen and ultimately, vide job sheet, Ex.C2, the abovesaid mobile handset has been shown 'Dead' by the opposite party No.2, hence we conclude that there is some inherent manufacturing defect in it as it was not working properly.

10. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3. Hence this complainant is accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and dismissed qua the opposite party No.1. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.6600/- (Price of the mobile handset in question as per Ex.C3) to the complainant. The mobile handset in question is already lying with the opposite party No.2 as such no direction can be given to the complainant in this regard.

11. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

12. In case of non-compliance, the interest @ 9% per annum will yield on the amount of Rs.6600/- till realization.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

21-03-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member