Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Sh.Kanwar Pahul Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that he purchased one mobile phone worth Rs.21,900/- namely Iphone 5S Gray vide invoice dated 24.2.2016. Opposite Party No.1 is the manufacturer whereas Opposite Party No.2 is the Authorised Service Centre of the Mobile Set in question. On 13.8.2016 i.e. within warranty period, the Mobile Set in dispute developed defect i.e. while working on the phone, one black spot appeared all of sudden on the display of the same. Immediately on the same day, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 i.e.Authorised Service Centre with the complaint of black spot on display. Opposite Party No.2 i.e.Authorised Service Centre  told the complainant that they have inspected the Mobile Set in dispute and suspected the said damage as pressure damage and liquid damage, but the request to replace the Mobile Set in dispute  under warranty was declined. The Mobile Set in dispute was returned to the complainant on the same day. The delivery report is enclosed herewith. The complainant requested Opposite Party No.2 i.e.Authorised Service Centre that the said defect  occurred all of a sudden  i.e. while working on the Mobile Set in dispute and is not due to any pressure being made on the  mobile set and also requested them that only display is not working due to said black spot and the Mobile Set in dispute is being on an off properly, as such the question of liquid damage done to the Mobile Set in dispute does not arise. As per the policy of the Opposite Parties, they can not repair the Mobile Set in dispute, they only replace the same if the mobile set is under warranty and to avoid their liability to replace the same, they are alleging the defects due to reason above which is totally illegal or arbitrary. The complainant requested Opposite Party No.2 i.e.Authorised Service Centre number of times to replace the mobile set as the said defect occurred due to manufacturing defect, but they are  quite adamant and showing their reluctance to do so and told the complainant to do what he wishes to do. The aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties amount to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Till today, the complainant is pursuing his matter with Opposite Parties, but in vain.  The  complainant has prayed for the following reliefs  through the instant complaint.

a)       Opposite Parties  be directed to either replace the Mobile Set in dispute with new one or refund the total price paid by the complainant alongwith Rs.30,000/- as compensation as well as Rs.10,000/-  as litigation expenses.  

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Sh.Munish Menon, Advocate appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 and Sh.Sanjeet Singh, appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2. But however, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3, hence Opposite Party No.3 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.10.2016. On the other hand, despite availing several opportunities, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 failed to file written version despite lapse of 45 days, hence Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have forfeited their right to file written version.     

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered  his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of invoice Ex.C2, copy of job sheet Ex.C3  and closed the evidence.

4.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

5.       From the perusal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant purchased Mobile Set from Opposite Party No.3 manufactured by Opposite Party No.1 on 24.02.2016 for a sum of Rs.21,500/- vide invoice  No. R-0001891, copy whereof is Ex.C2 on the record. As such, the complainant has proved himself to be a ‘consumer’ under Opposite Parties. Opposite Party No.2 happened to be a service provider. There is evidence on record that Mobile Set in dispute developed some defect within warranty period  on 13.8.2016 i.e. within 6 months from the date of its purchase and it had shown black spot on its display. The complainant used to make complaints to  Opposite Party No.2 i.e.Authorised Service Centre, but to no affect. Opposite Party No.2 i.e.Authorised Service Centre took Mobile Set in dispute on  13.8.2016 for repair purposes, but they have failed to repair the Mobile Set in dispute till date, copy of job sheet accounts for Ex.C3.  The Opposite Party No.2 i.e.Authorised Service Centre told the complainant orally that the defect in the Mobile Set in dispute happened due to liquid and pressure damage, but however, to prove said version, Opposite Parties did not file  the written  version,  despite  availing several  opportunities.   The evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record. In this way, the Opposite Parties have impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. It also shows that Opposite Parties  have no defence to dislodge the complaint. The very fact that the Opposite Party No.2 i.e.Authorised Service Centre has retained the Mobile Set in dispute  for repair purposes ever since 13.8.2016  shows that the Opposite Parties  are deficient in service.  The complainant vide instant complaint has sought the relief for replacement of the Mobile Set in dispute with new one, but however,  the complainant has failed to adduce any expert evidence to prove that  there was some manufacturing defect in the Mobile Set in dispute. As such, request for replacement of the Mobile Set in dispute with a new one is not tenable.   However, Opposite Parties  are definitely liable to repair the Mobile Set in dispute to the satisfaction of the complainant without charging any amount since the Mobile Set in dispute happen to be within warranty period.  Consequently, the instant complaint succeeds  and the Opposite Parties are directed to repair the Mobile Set in dispute to the satisfaction of the complainant, without charging any amount, within one month from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which the Opposite Parties  shall   refund the sale price of the Mobile Set in dispute i.e. Rs.21,500/-, to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of passing of the order until full and final payment. All the Opposite Parties  are held liable jointly, severally & co-extensively to comply with the order.  The complaint stands allowed accordingly. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum