DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC.No.233 of 08.09.2009<br /> Decided on: 03.12.2009<br /> <br /> Harveen Singh S/o Sh. Manmohan Singh, resident of House No. 5733, Mohall Akalgarh, Bathinda.<br /> …….Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> 1. Allied Telecom, S.S.D. School Wali Market, Opp. Subhash Market, Bathinda, through its prop./partner.<br /> 2. Adev Electronics, Shop No.20, Krishna Market, Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda.<br /> 3. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, Having its office at B-1, Sector- 81, Phase 2nd, Gautam Budh nagar, Noida (U.P.).<br /> ……..Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> <br /> Complaint under Section12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> Present:<br /> For the Complainant : Sh. J.S.Kohli, counsel for the complainant.<br /> For the Opposite parties: Sh. Rajiv Gupta, counsel for opposite parties <br /> No.2&3.<br /> Opposite party No.1 already exparte.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh. George, President.<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member.<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> GEORGER, PRESIDENT:-<br /> <br /> 1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as ‘Act’) with the allegations against the opposite parties that he purchased one Mobile Handset make Samsung Model No. SGH-L700, SI No. R2UQ958201M, IMEI/RSN No. 35556902238826 on dated 06.11.2008, from opposite party No. 1 for the sum of RS. 7,400/-. The Mobile Handset started giving problem, soon after its purchase, it created problem in functioning i.e. hanging and battery backup problem. He approached opposite party No.1 on 23.06.2009, but opposite party No.1 asked him to approach opposite party No.2 i.e. authorized service centre of opposite party No.3. He approached opposite party No.2, on the same day, and after checking the handset in question, asked complainant to deposit the handset, and to collect the same within a week. He visited the office of opposite party No.2, after one week, and he was told by opposite party No.2 to wait for a week, as the mobile handset was having some manufacturing defect, and it will take time to repair the same. He continued to approach to opposite party No.2, with the request to repair the handset, and returned the same to him, but opposite parties No. 1&2 have been putting the matter off & ultimately, they flatly refused to accede to the requests of complainant. The handset was not returned to the complainant, till the date of filing the present complaint, despite the complainant sent a legal notice dated 22.08.2009. Complainant as thus, by filing the present complaint has sought directions against the opposite parties to replace the aforesaid defective mobile handset, with a new one, and opposite parties pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,000/-, for causing mental tension, agony, harassment, and inconvenience to the complainant alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- <br /> 2. Opposite party No.1 filed no reply, and he was preceded against exparte. Opposite parties No. 2 and 3 filed their joint reply raising objections that complaint is not maintainable, and complaint has been filed on false and frivolous ground, and same is liable to be dismissed with special costs.<br /> 3. On merits also while denying all the allegations of the complainant, opposite parties No. 2 and 3 admitted that the handset was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1. However, they pleaded that, the handset was received by opposite party No.2 for repair in the month of June 2009. The handset could be repaired as the flash memory of handset had been damaged, and spare were not available due to which sometime was consumed in repairing the handset. The handset stands fully repaired, but the complainant has been refusing to take back the same, rather had been demanding its replacement by a new one. Ultimately opposite party No.2 ready to replace the handset, just for maintaining the fair name of company, although since the handset had been fully repaired the complainant was not entitled to insist for replacement. The complainant is now desirous of purchasing a new model, due to which he does not want repair or replacement of the handset. Nevertheless the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 are ready to deliver back the repaired handset, and/or are prepared to replace the old handset with a new one. In such circumstances, the complaint is without merit. The complainant is not entitled to any damages or cost of the litigation.<br /> 4. Complainant in order to prove his allegations, filed his own affidavit dated 08.09.09 Ex.C-1, and also brought on record, copy of Job Sheet Ex.C-2; copy of legal notice dated 22.08.09 Ex.C.3; copies of postal receipt Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6, and registered cover received back with the report refusal Ex.C-7.<br /> 5. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, opposite parties filed affidavit of Sh. Hardinesh Aggarwal dated 25.11.09 Ex.R-1.<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties, and perused the entire record of the case carefully.<br /> 7. It is an admitted fact the mobile handset was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1 on 06.11.2008, for Rs. 7,400/-. It is also an admitted fact that the handset developed some fault, such as, hanging and battery backup problem, and it was on the advice of opposite party No.1, deposited with opposite party No.2 i.e. authorized service centre of the manufacturer i.e. opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.2 prepared the Job Card Ex.C-2, and asked the complainant to collect the handset after a week, but the handset could not be returned because flash memory of handset had been damaged, and spare were not available, due to which, some time was consumed in repairing the handset. It is not clear from the evidence of the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 that as to when, the handset was repaired, and whether the information of the same was given to the complainant either verbally/telephonically, or by mail etc. <br /> 8. It is an admitted fact that the handset is still lying with opposite party No.2. Though opposite parties No. 2 and 3 have pleaded in their reply, the handset is repaired, and ready for delivery to the complainant, but none of the two opposite parties have taken the trouble to bring the repaired handset before the Forum. During the course of arguments and application has been moved by the learned counsel for opposite parties No. 2 and 3, whereby, he has standard cheque No.935654 dated 26.10.2009 for a sum of Rs. 7,400/- infavour of the complainant-Harveen Singh for payment of cost of the handset of the complainant. <br /> 9. The record reveals that the complainant deposited his handset with opposite party No.2 on 23.06.2009, and from 23.06.2009 till date, the complainant has been deprived of the enjoyment, and use of the handset, due to the slackness, on the part of opposite parties No.2 and 3, and as such, opposite parties are responsible, not only for making payment of the cost of the handset, but also they are liable to pay interest @ 9% on the cost of the handset from 23.06.2009, till the interest amount is finally paid to the complainant. The complainant is deprived of the use, and enjoyment of the mobile handset, due to the slackness, and rendering not adequate service, and as such, they are liable to pay reasonable and adequate amount of compensation to the complainant. We under the peculiar facts and circumstances, of the case, assess the compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 2,000/-. The cheque has been tendered by opposite parties No. 2 and 3 in the Forum, may be hand over to the complainant, after lapse of the period of filing the appeal.<br /> 10. Opposite parties No. 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable for, to pay the amount of compensation and cost, in equal shares. <br /> 11. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 12. The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost, and file be indexed and consigned.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced (GEORGE)<br /> 03.12.2009 PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> (DR. PHULINDER PREET)<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> (AMARJEET PAUL)<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br />