DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.230 of 03-07-2015

Decided on 24-02-2016

Jacky S/o Satish Kumar R/o Sangat Mandi, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Vardhman Telecom, Main Power House Road, Near Gali No.5, Bathinda.

2.Unitech Computerized Mobile Service Centre, # 2686, 1^st Floor, Opp. Dr.Jagmal Neuro, G.T Road, Near Old Bus Stand, Bathinda, through its Authorized Person.

3.Syntech Technology Pvt. Ltd. F-2, Block No.B-1, Ground Floor, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044, through its MD/CMD.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

Counsel for complainant: Sh.Amanpal Jindal, Advocate.

Opposite party No.1: Ex-parte.

Opposite party Nos.2 & 3: Sh.Amit Ghai, Advocate.

ORDER

M. P. Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Jacky (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Vardhman Telecom and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Gionee P2S mobile handset for Rs.6300/- vide bill No.131 dated 4.8.2014 from opposite party No.1 with one year guarantee/warranty on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 and 3 from the date of its purchase.

3. It is alleged that the mobile handset started creating some problem in its use and operation just within few days of its purchase. The complainant made complaint to opposite party No.1, it asked him to get the mobile handset checked from opposite party No.2 i.e. service centre. He approached opposite party No.2 and handed over the mobile handset for removal of the defect, if necessary. Opposite party No.2 changed the touch screen of the mobile handset worth Rs.2100/- on 15.4.2015. He approached many times opposite party No.2 for removal of problem of touch and blank display as the mobile handset was within the warranty period. Opposite party No.2 received the mobile handset and issued a job card No.5333 dated 12.5.2015 to the complainant, but it failed to solve the problem. Thereafter opposite party No.2 took job card from the complainant and issued him a new service request/job card dated 29.5.2015, but still it did not solve the problem.

   On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and has claimed for refund of price of mobile handset amounting to Rs.6300/- plus Rs.2100/- charged for change of its touch screen and has also claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Hence, this complaint.

4. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1. Hence, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it.

   Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 appeared through their counsel, but they have failed to file written version within the stipulated period. As such, matter was posted for evidence of complainant.

5. Both the parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence.

6. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavits dated 3.7.2015 and 15.9.2015, (Ex.C1 and Ex.C7); photocopy of bill, (Ex.C2); photocopies of job card, (Ex.C3 to Ex.C5); photocopy of legal notice, (Ex.C6); photocopy of postal receipts, (Ex.C8) and closed the evidence.

7. In order to rebut this evidence, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have tendered into evidence affidavit of Sikander Verma dated 24.11.2015, (Ex.OP2/1) and closed the evidence.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

9. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the job card proves that the mobile handset is with opposite party No.2 and it has failed to repair the same. Evidence of the complainant is unrebutted and unchallenged. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sikander Verma, (Ex.OP2/1), but vide this affidavit opposite party No.2 has simply deposed that the contents of written version be read as part of this affidavit. They have not filed any written version to main complaint. Therefore, this affidavit becomes meaningless. Thus, evidence of the complainant is unrebutted and unchallenged. He is entitled for relief as claimed for.

   To support his submissions learned counsel for complainant has cited I (2007) CPJ 120 in case Head, Marketing and Communication, Nokia Vs. Ankush Kapoor & Ors.

10. On the other learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 and 3 has submitted that that this complaint cannot be accepted only for the reason that opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have not filed written version and produced evidence. The complainant has to prove his case by affirmative evidence. He has purchased his mobile handset on 4.8.2014. As per complainant, he handed over the mobile handset on 12.5.2015, which means he used the mobile handset for about 9 months without any problem. Therefore, it cannot presumed that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset, as such the complainant cannot claim refund of its price. At the most the complainant can claim for repair that too as per terms and conditions of warranty card.

11. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

12. The complainant has alleged manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. This fact was to be proved by him. Only evidence produced by the complainant are his affidavits, bill and job card. From these documents, manufacturing defect is not proved in the mobile handset. Moreover the complainant has purchased the mobile handset on 4.8.2014 and handed over the same to opposite party No.2 on 12.5.2015. The complainant has used the mobile handset for about 9 months. This fact shows that there was no manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. Of-course, opposite party Nos.2 and 3 were to provide service i.e. to repair the mobile handset, if any defect covered under warranty period. Opposite party No.2 retained the mobile handset and not repaired it. Therefore, deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 stands proved. Opposite party No.1 has simply sold the mobile handset with warranty by company only. Therefore, opposite party No.1 is not responsible for any deficiency on the part of opposite party Nos.2 and 3.

13. For the reasons recorded above,, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and dismissed qua opposite party No.1. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are directed to handover the mobile handset to the complainant after its repair as per terms and conditions of warranty card.

14. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

15. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

16. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    24-02-2016

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member