BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.03/2018.
Date of instt.:02.01.2018.
Date of Decision:22.01.2019.
Ram Shankar Choudhary s/o Shri Makeshwar Choudhary, r/o Bihar, posted as Gateman in the Northern Railway at Railway Station, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Vijay Sales, Pune (Slarpur Road), Amar Manor, 32/3, Next to Krome Mall, Pune Solar.
- Jai Maa Mobile Repair, Kaithal, Opp. old D.C. Residence, Karnal Road, Kaithal.
- Sytech Technology Pvt. Ltd., E-9, Block no.31, Ground Floor, Mohan Co-operative 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
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Umesh Bura, Adv. for the OP No.1.
Ops No.2 & 3 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 he purchased mobile Gionee Marathon M5 Lite Gold for Rs.11300/- from respondent No.1 vide Bill/receipt No.193-PSL10-1651 886 dt. 28.10.16. The said mobile became defective soon after its purchase i.e. battery backup low, charging slow, calls problems, hangs, camera not clear, hearing problems and other application, battery short endurable, charging not stable, unable to make outgoing call, video vague blur, hang while calling and menu browsing. He made complaint to the respondent No.2 vide job sheet No.GC-16B00032735 dt. 7.11.16 SR. No.IMEI No.869328027166011 and telephonic call on No.1800 208 1666 as well as various emails on 08.11.2016, 09.11.16,11.11.16, 12.11.16, 14.11.16, 16.11.16, 21.11.16, 22.11.16, 23.11.16, 01.12.16, 22.4.17 and 15.10.17 to Vijay Sales, but to no effect. The respondents has given 2nd handset on 10.4.17 by saying that said mobile is new, but same was defective and respondent asked to talk with Area Manager, TSM and said mobile was deposited in Pune and job sheet No.GC17500025563 dt. 05.5.17 was issued and 2nd defective mobile was deposited with care center at Pune. The respondent No.2 gave another handset/mobile received by his wife on 03.10.17 from Pune, which was also defective and he made complaint to respondent No.2 on 09.10.17, but the respondent has not received complaint due to the reason that EMEI is wrong and same has been replaced and manual job sheet was given and there remained MIC problem, call problem, silent, battery problem, touch problem and ear phone etc. and said mobile is still with the respondent No.2, and job sheet No.GC16B00127445 dt. 28.10.16 and job sheet No.GC1730013089 dt. 29.3.17 was given and online job sheet was not issued. The mobile within the warranty period. He made online complaint regarding defective of mobile on 26.10.17 vide docket No.483706 and complaint was sent through regd on 27.10.17 to M.D. Gionee vide postal receipt No.RH293957928IN. He visited the respondent No.2 a week ago about the repair, but the respondent No.2 has not given satisfactory reply to the complaint and misbehaved with him. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Mark C1 to Mark C20.
2. On notice OP No.1 appeared before this forum, whereas, no one appeared on behalf of Ops No.2 & 3 and as such, they were opted to be proceeded against ex parte.
The OP No.1 filed reply submitting therein that the respondent No.1 is a dealer and the respondent No.1 sent the complaint to the service centre which was received from the complainant; that the complainant is not entitled to get any benefit under warrantee for replacement from the answering respondent; that the warranty period has already been expired. On merits, the rest of the contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same. However, the Op No.1 failed to lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities and as such, evidence of the OP No.1 was closed by the order of this Forum.
3. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the complainant.
4. From the pleadings and evidence of the complainant, it is clear that the complainant purchased Gionee Marathon M5 Lite Gold for Rs.11,300/- from OP No.1 vide Bill/receipt No.193-PSL10-16S1 886 dt. 28.10.16 (Mark C-1).
5. According to complainant, the said mobile set became defective soon after the purchase and started creating problems like battery backup low, charging slow, calls problems, hangs, camera not clear, hearing problems, battery short endurable, charging not stable, unable to make outgoing call, video vague blur, hang while calling and menu browsing. The complainant visited the OP No.2 i.e. service centre regarding the mobile in question on various dates vide job-sheets dt. 07.11.2016, 28.11.2016 and 29.3.2017 Mark C-2 to Mark C-4 respectively. The OPs has given 2nd hand mobile set to the complainant on 10.4.2017, but said mobile set was also defective one and the complainant visited the OP No.2 in this regard on 05.5.2017 vide job sheets Mark C5. Thereafter, the OPs gave another handset to the wife of the complainant on 03.10.17 from Pune, which was also defective one and the complainant again visited the OP No.2 in this regard on 09.10.2017 & 13.10.2017 as is clear from job sheet Mark C6. The complainant also sent various emails to OPs on dt. 08.11.16, two emails on 09.11.16), 11.11.16, 12.11.16, 14.11.16, 17.11.16, two emails on 21.11.16, 22.11.16, 23.11.16, 01.12.16, 22.4.17 and 15.10.17 (Mark C7 to Mark C20) respectively. But the OPs did not resolve the grievance of the complainant, rather misbehaved with him. On the other hand, the OP No.1 mainly contended that the complainant is not entitled to get any benefit under warrantee for replacement from the OP No.1 as the warranty period has already been expired. But this contention of the OP No.1 has no force, because in job sheets Mark C2 to Mark C4, the OP No.2 admitted that the mobile set in question is within warranty period. The complainant has supported his versions by affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Mark C1 to Mark C20, whereas, on the other hand, the OPs No.2 & 3 did not appear and proceeded against ex parte. Even no document has been produced by OP No.1 as the evidence of the OP No.1 has been closed by the order of this Forum. Therefore, the evidence of the complainant goes un-rebutted against the OPs. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the mobile set in question of the complainant became defective within the warranty period and the OPs have failed to resolve the grievance of the complainant. Hence, the OPs are deficient.
6. The complainant has prayed in his complaint for refund of the amount of Rs.11,300/- ‘the cost of the mobile phone in question. At the time of argument, the complainant also stated that he does not want to replacement of the mobile in question. From the pleadings and evidence, it is clear that the complainant purchased the mobile in question on 28.10.16 which became defective on 02.11.16 and the complainant made the complaint on 07.11.16 to the OPs as is clear from Job sheet Mark C-2. Therefore, the mobile set became defective from the very beginning. It is pertinent to mention here that the secondhand set of the mobile given by the OPs to the complainant on 10.04.2017 was also defective. It is further pertinent to mention here that even the replaced handset given by the OPs on 03.10.17 was also defective. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for entire price of the mobile set in question. It is hereby made clear that the handset in question is already with the OPs.
7. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.11,300/- ‘the cost of the mobile set to the complainant. No order as to costs. All the OPs are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 02.1.2018 till its realization. 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.22.1.2019.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Suman Rana) (Rajbir Singh)
Member. Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Umesh Bura, Adv. for the OP No.1.
Ops No.2 & 3 ex parte.
Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated:22.1.2019. Member. Member. President.
