SANJIV KUMAR BANSAL Vs. SHALIMAR ELECTRONICS
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2009-4-4
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on April 01,2009

Sanjiv Kumar Bansal Appellant
VERSUS
Shalimar Electronics Respondents

JUDGEMENT

CHANDER SHEKHER SHARMA - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, dated 31.8.2007 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 295/2006. In the operative part of the order of the District Forum below has dismissed the complaint and parties have been directed to bear their own cost.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum below, the appellant has filed this appeal before this Commission. The facts as they emerge from the complaint in the present case are, that the appellant Shri Sanjeev Kumar Bansal filed a complaint against the respondents with the allegations that he had purchased Nokia Mobile 3230 with camera facility from respondent No. 1 M/s. Shalimar Electronic, Main Bazar, Darlaghat for Rs. 14,810. He handed over the said set for repair with respondent No. 2 M/s. Nokia India Ltd. C/o M/s. Nokia Care, The Mall, Shimla on 17.11.2005 as it was not functioning properly. Further allegations made by the appellant were that the mobile set even after repairs was not operative, and was again given for repairs to respondent No. 3 on 14.12.2005. Respondent No. 3 had given a stand by set No. 1188 to the appellant. Defective handset could not be repaired by the respondent. Thereafter, the appellant had again given the set for repairs to respondent No. 3 on 17.8.2006, and as per averments made in the complaint, this respondent did not repair the said set despite many visits by complainant. Unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents was alleged in the complaint by the appellant and complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed for a direction to replace the defective mobile set and in the alternative to pay a sum of Rs. 14,810 along with interest @ 18% per annum, and compensation of Rs. 5,000 besides litigation costs.
(3.) CASE of the respondent No. 1 in the reply is, that the appellant did purchase mobile No. 3230 from it. However it was to be repaired by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, as such there was no deficiency in service on its part. On the other hand, stand of respondent No. 2 as per averment made in the reply was, that there was no deficiency in service and also there was no violation of terms and conditions of warranty. It had also been pleaded by them that the mobile set was brought for repairs on 14.12.2005 by the appellant about not properly functioning, it was returned after repairs to the appellant and thereafter the appellant again brought the handset for repair with a problem of key pad and scratches of battery and the handset was liquid locked and it had fallen and stopped functioning. It was also pleaded by them that the set was out of warranty, and respondent No. 3 had issued estimate for repairs which was not approved by the appellant. Respondent No. 3 also pleaded that the handset had also been tampered, as such their defence was that they are not entitled to repair the mobile or to replace the same. The appellant had relied on the complaint and Annexure C -1 which is copy of the bill dated 28.9.2005 issued by respondent No. 1 in favour of the appellant for Rs. 14,810, and Annexure C -2 which is receipt dated 14.12.2005 whereby said Nokia Mobile set was handed over to respondent No. 1 with the complaint that camera is not working and Annexure C -4 is the job sheet dated 19.12.2005 issued by respondent No. 3 wherein it had been mentioned that camera had a bad image and repeated problems for five times. This respondent had also placed reliance on the document Annexure OP -2/A which has been annexed with the reply and the averment made therein.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.