Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/10/2016

Karanpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.S Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

26 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.         :     10 of 08.02.2016

Date of Decision:                    :     26.05.2016

Karanpal Singh son of Sh.Dharam Pal Singh Resident of House No.B-20/1, Khosla Mohalla, Rahon, Tehsil Nawanshahr District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

                                                                             …Complainant

Versus

1. A.S. Mobile, Nokia Cares Building, Opposite Swarnkar Bhawan, Rahon Road, Nawanshahr, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar through its owner – Pardeep Singh (Mobile No.98884-18195)
2. TVS Electronics Ltd. 260-A, First Floor, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana, Punjab now shifted to TVS Electronics Ltd., 1^st Floor, Ansal Plaza, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.
3. TVSE Chandigarh/TVS Electronics Ltd. SCO – 104, First Floor, Sector-47-A, Chandigarh – 160047 (Authorized by HTC)
4. TVS Electronics Ltd. South Phase – 7A, Second Floor, Industrial Estate Guindy, Chennai – 600032 (Head Office of HTC Customer Service Centre)
5. MPS Telecom Pvt. Ltd, D-55, 1^st & 2^nd Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi – 110020 (authorized Importer of HTC Mobiles in India).
6. The New India Assurance Company, Banga Road, Nawanshahr.

          …Opposite Parties

                             Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

MS.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

ARGUED BY:

For complainant                      :         In person.

For OPs No.1 to 3                            :         Ex parte.

For OPs No. 4 to 6.                 :         Dismissed.

ORDER

MRS.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

1.       Kanranpal Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the OPs.)  Praying therein that the OPs be directed :-

1. To refund the price of the mobile i.e. Rs.24500/-.
2. To pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment.
3. To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.       Briefly the case of the complainant is that he had purchased a mobile set from Op. No. 1 of make H.T.C., model Desire 826 for a sum of Rs.24,500/- vide bill No. 1134   dated 21.05.2015. OP No. 1 got the said mobile insured from OP No. 6 for Rs.1750/-. After some time of its purchase there was defect in the earphone Jack and the speaker of mobile was malfunctioning. On 27.07.2015, he took the said mobile set for its repair to OP No. 2, who kept the same and told him to come after ten days, but after seven days he received a phone call from OP No. 2, telling him to take back the mobile set. When, on 07.08.2015 he went to the OP No. 2, then it handed over the mobile set to him and also gave a DOA certificate and told to him to submit the said mobile set alongwith DOA with the OP No.1, who would replace the same with new one. On 08.08.2015, on the advised of Op No.2, he approached OP No.1, it kept the original bill and DOA certificate and told him to come after 20/25 days to collect the new mobile set.  On 10.08.2015, he again went to OP No.1, to collect the original bill, then OP No.1 handed over him new mobile set vide bill No.1541 dated 10.08.2015.   Even the said mobile got defected after five months of its purchase, there was problem of Camera Blurr and Head Phone Jack.  For removal of the said problems, he went to OP No.2 at Ludhiana, he was told by said OP that it could not provide the service for the mobile set in question because said mobile had been sold from Chennai without paying tax and he was asked to contact OP No.1.   On contacting OP No.1, he was told to either leave mobile set with Op No.1 for 20/25 days or he could himself take the same to OP No.3.  He took the mobile set to Op No.3 at Chandigarh, it also told that the said mobile set sold from Chennai without paying tax and that is why, it could not provide service and advised him to talk to OP No.1.  It is further stated that on the asking of OP No.1, he visited HTC Service Centre, Ludhiana – OP No.2 and OP No.3 i.e. Service Centre at Chandigarh, but they refused to provide services.  In this way, all the Ops were deficient in providing services and due to said act of OPs he has suffered financial loss and has gone through mental agony and physically harassment. Not only this, the OPs have not given any insurance amount to him while replacing the defected mobile which was insured for a period of one year. Therefore, the complaint be allowed and the OPs be directed to compensate him as prayed for by him, in the complaint.

3.       After receipt of the notice the OPs appeared but thereafter due to non-appearance of the OPs No. 1 to 3, they were proceeded against ex parte by this Forum vide order dated 28.04.2016.

4.       In support of his version, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, Retail Invoice No.1134 dated 21.05.2015 Ex.C-1, Retail Invoice No.1541 dated 10.08.2015 Ex.C-2, Insurance (2 pages) Ex.C-3, HTC Repair Report Ex.C-4 and DOA Certificate Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.   

5.       We have heard the complainant in person and have also gone through the record carefully.

6.       As per the version of the complainant, the mobile set which he purchased from the OP. No. 1 vide retail invoice No. 1134 dated 21.05.2015 Ex.C1, got defected and the same was replaced with new one by OP No.1 on 10.08.2015 vide bill No.1541 Ex.C2 on submission of mobile set and DOA certificate Ex.C5 issued by the service center.  However, even the said mobile also got defected just after five months.  On the advice of OP No.1, he took the mobile set initially to OP No.2, who refused to repair the same on the ground that it had been sold from Chennai without paying tax.  Thereafter, he took the mobile set in question for its repair to OP No. 3, situated at Chandigarh on the same ground.  Due non-appearance of OPs No. 1 to 3, they were proceeded against ex parte and version put forth by complainant went un-rebutted.  Thus, we have no option but to accept the version of complainant. 

          From the retail invoice Ex.C-2, it is evident that on 10.08.2015, the Op No.1 had issued the said retail invoice to the complainant for sale of mobile set for Rs.24,500/-.  Thus, it is proved that the OP No.1 has sold the mobile set in question to the complainant.  On checking, it was found by service centers situated at Ludhiana and Chandigarh that the said mobile was not a legally procured set and was therefore not entitled for service at service centre.  By no stretch of imagination the complainant could be penalized for the mobile set which was purchased by OP No.1, without payment of tax.  Taking these facts into consideration, we do not hesitate to conclude that the Op No.1 is not only deficient in providing services but has also indulged into unfair trade practice, who had given the unauthorized mobile set, procured without payment of tax, which was not entitled to service at the service centre. Therefore, OP No.1 is not only liable to refund the price of the mobile set to the complainant but also liable to compensate the complainant for financial loss, mental agony and physically harassment suffered by him. Since, the mobile set in question was not legally procured set and was therefore not entitled for service at service centre, and OP No.2&3 by refusing to service the said mobile have not committed any deficiency in service and the complaint filed against them is liable to be dismissed.

7.       The complaint against OP No. 4 to 6 was dismissed being not maintainable vide order dated 11.02.2016 passed by this Forum.

8.       In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint against OP No.2 & 3 and allow the same against Op No.1. The OP No. 1 is directed as under : -

1. To refund to complainant Rs.24,500/- i.e. price of mobile set.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

The OP No.1 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

9.       The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs, as per rules and file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Dated:  26.05.2016                           (NEENA SANDHU)

                                                          President

 

                                                          (KANWALJEET SINGH)

                                                          Member