Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/200

Mohit Markant - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amit Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Jatinder Verma

09 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/200 of 16.9.2015

                                      Decided on:        9.12.2015

 

Mohit Markan aged about 38 years s/o Sh.Rajinder Pal Markan R/o H.No.1160, Phase-2, Urban Estate, Patiala.       

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.      Amit Communication, A-Tank, Patiala through its Prop./Partner Nikhil.

2.      Rohit Bansal, Manager Image Services, Shop No.74-75, Chhoti Barandari Market, Near Roop Gas, Patiala.

                                                                   …………….Ops

 

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member                               

                                                                            

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.Hitender Sharda , Advocate

For Op No.2:                  Exparte.  

                                     

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is alleged by the complainant that he had purchased the mobile phone make HTC Desire 816G + ( Duel) bearing IMEI No.356064062898776-356064062918772 from Op no.1 vide bill dated 2.2.2015.After some time the touch screen of the mobile phone had been damaged. The complainant approached Op no.1 who referred him to Op no.2 i.e. the service centre. The complainant approached Op no.2 on 10.7.2015, who issued the job card No.IX COO80006091 and he was told by Op no.2 that he would be charged Rs.5480/- for the repair of the touch screen and the complainant agreed to pay the same. He paid Rs.230/- as advance.
2. After a week the complainant approached Op no.2 to collect the mobile  hand set. He was told that the repair of the mobile phone was under process and he was asked to come again on 20.7.2015 .On 20.7.2015 when the complainant approached op no.2, he was surprised to see that the mobile hand set had not been repaired and rather he was asked by Op no.2 to deposit the balance repair charges of Rs.5250/-. Under the  compelled circumstances the complainant paid the amount of Rs.5250/- .The complainant was asked to come after a gap of 10 days i.e. on 30.7.2015 but the Op failed to repair the mobile hand set and rather told the complainant that the same had been sent for repair and that it will take a sufficient time of 10 days..On 10.7.2015, the complainant learnt from one Prabsimranjit Singh that he was also charged Rs.3970/- for a similar defect in his mobile hand set by the Op, when he had reported defect vide job card No.IXCOO80005898.The complainant visited the service centre several times to take the delivery of the mobile hand set but the same was not delivered to him , which resulted into the harassment and the mental agony suffered by the complainant, for which he is entitled to a compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/-.
3. The complainant got the Op served with a legal notice through his counsel sent through registered post but the Op did not care for the same. Accordingly the complainant brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Ops either to replace the mobile hand set with new one or to refund the price thereof with interest; to refund a sum of Rs.5480/- charged illegally from him; to pay him Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him and further to award him Rs.10,000/-towards the costs of the complaint.
4. The cognizance of the complaint was taken against Op no.2 only who despite service failed to come present and was accordingly proceeded against exparte.
5. In the exparte evidence, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit ,Ex.CB, the sworn affidavit of Prabhsimranjit Singh alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C5 and his counsel closed the evidence.
6. The complainant filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the evidence on record.
7. Ex.C1 is the copy of the retail invoice dated 2.2.2015 regarding the purchase of the mobile hand set in question from Op no.1.Ex.C2 is the job card No. IX Coo6091 dated 10.7.2015 issued by Op no.2 in favor of the complainant regarding mobile phone make HTC Desire 816 G duel sim bearing IMEI No. 356064062898776 showing the symptom of an LCD broken[OOW]: TOUCH DAMAGE. The job card is also written with the figure of Rs.5480/- showing the advance payment of Rs.230/- and further the payment of Rs.5230/- made on 20.7.2015 showing the balance as nil.
8. It is the case of the complainant that despite Op no.2 having received the charges for the repair of the mobile hand set, his mobile hand set has not been repaired although the complainant got the Op served with the legal notice dated 12.8.2015 ( Ex.C4) sent through registered post, the copy of the postal receipt being Ex.C5.
9. Here, it may be noted that the complainant has also averred that one more customer namely Prabhsimranjit Singh  had got his similar mobile phone hand set repaired from Op no.2 vide job card IXCOO80005898 ( copy Ex.C3) regarding the same very problem i.e. LCD broken[OOW]: Touch damage but he was charged Rs.3970/- .
10. As regards the deficiency of service on the part of the Op in not having repaired the mobile hand set despite having realized the entire charges of Rs.5438/- from the complainant vide job card Ex.C2 of 20.7.2015, we are of the considered view that such a delay on the part of the Op has certainly caused uncalled for harassment and the mental agony to the complainant but as regards the plea taken up by the complainant that some other customer namely Prabhsimranjit Singh was charged by Op no.2 lesser amount of Rs.3970/- regarding the repair of his mobile hand set in respect of the same type of the problem, we are of the considered view that no such comparison can be made by the complainant because it is not shown by the complainant that any rates have been prescribed by the manufacturer of the mobile hand set for charging the uniform rates regarding the same very problem. A similar type of problem if occurred in two different mobile handsets may require different techniques for repairing the same. Nothing is shown by the complainant as to how the problem of the other consumer namely Prabhsimranjit Singh was rectified i.e. whether the touch screen was replaced or any part was also repaired/replaced. Similarly it cannot be said with regard to the problem of the complainant and therefore, the said part of the case of the complainant has got nothing to do with the charges of Rs.5480/- realized by the Op from the complainant for repairing his mobile hand set particularly when it is the positive plea taken up by the complainant that he had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5480/- for the repair of his mobile hand set. Consequently, we accept the complaint and direct Op no.2 to repair the mobile hand set of the complainant within 10 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the complaint to the satisfaction of the complainant and in case it is not possible to replace the mobile hand set of the complainant with new one of the same make because Op no.2 is the authorized service centre of the manufacturer of the mobile hand set by taking up the matter with the manufacturer. On account of the deficiency of service on the part of Op no.2 which resulted into the harassment and mental agony experienced by the complainant, OP No.2 is also directed to make the payment of Rs.10,000/- by way of compensation which is inclusive of the costs of the complaint within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.
11.  

Dated: 9.12.2015

 

                   Sonia Bansal                Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                        Member                                  President