THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 63 of 2015
Date of Institution : 27.01.2015
Date of Decision : 21.09.2015
Gurvinder Singh S/o S. Joga Singh resident of village Mallu Nangal, Tehsil and District Amritsar working in House Keeping Department, Surya Residency Hotel, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Bawa Collection, Shop No. 15, Adjoining Building Landa Bazar, Amritsar through its Prop/partner
M/s. Cell Hut, authorized Service Centre,Shop No. 201-202, Sunrise Plaza, Iind Floor, Cooper Road, Amritsar through its Partner/Prop.
M/s. Jaina Marketing and Associates, D-172, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase i, New Delhi 110020
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Inderjit Lakhra,Advocate
For the opposite party No.2 : Sh. Sanjeet Singh,Advocate
For opposite parties No.1 & 3 : Ex-parte
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member
-2-
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Gurvinder Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased one mobile set of Karbon vide bill No. 645 dated 21.2.2014 for a sum of Rs. 6000/- with one year warranty. According to the complainant within the said warranty period, the said mobile set became defective. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 and brought the defect to their notice, who further told the complainant to visit the authorized service centre i.e. opposite party No.2. Then the complainant approached opposite party No.2 and handed over the mobile set but they instead of issuing job sheet, made e-mail to the company regarding the defects in the mobile set and asked him to come after 10/15 days. After 10/15 days complainant visited opposite party No.2 and demanded back the mobile set and they told the complainant that the mobile set is having manufacturing defect and it is not repairable. But even then opposite party No.2 refused to issue the job sheet. Complainant has alleged that the said mobile set is not repairable and opposite parties are liable to hand over the new set of the same make or to refund the price of the same, but they did not give any response to the request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to hand over the new mobile set of the same make or model or to refund the full price of the set alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 25000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. Opposite partyNo.1 did not appear despite service, as such it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.2.2015. Opposite party No.3 also did not appear despite service, as such it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 28.8.2015.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its written version has submitted that the said mobile set has no manufacturing defects, so the mobile set cannot be ordered to be replaced. It was submitted that complainant approached the opposite party No.2 with various problems in the mobile set and after checking the said mobile hand set, it was found that the said set in question was already opened from the outsider unauthorized service centre and the same was narrated to the complainant and asked him that the said set did not come under the warranty and the complainant has to pay the repair cost or cost of parts, if any. But the complainant was not ready to listen the request of the opposite party . Replying opposite party time and again informed the same request but the complainant refused to accept the same offer and after that complainant never approached opposite party No.2 service centre and has filed the present complaint.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5.
5. Opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sahil Arora Ex.OP2/1.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the complainant and opposite party No.2 and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the complainant and opposite party No.2, it is clear that complainant purchased Karbon mobile set from opposite party No.1 vide invoice No. 645 dated 21.2.2014 Ex.C-3 for a sum of Rs. 6000/- with a warranty of one year. The complainant submitted that the said mobile set became defective/dead/totally not working. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 , authorized service centre and handed over the mobile set to opposite party No.2 , but opposite party No.2 did not issue any job sheet. However, they made e-mail to the company regarding the defects in the mobile set and asked the complainant to come after 10-15 days. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 after 15 days , but opposite party No.2 did not return the mobile set to the complainant after repair. Again the officials of opposite party No.2 refused to issue job sheet rather concerned official of opposite party No.2 told the complainant that his mobile set was not repairable and the company has not given any response to the e-mail issued by opposite party No.2. Thereafter the complainant served legal notice dated 4.12.2014 upon the opposite parties No.1 & 2, copy of which is Ex.C-5 through registered post . But inspite of that the opposite parties neither submitted any reply nor returned the mobile set to the complainant. The said mobile set is still lying with opposite party No.3.
8. Whereas case of opposite party No.2 is that complainant approached opposite party No.2 service centre, within the warranty period with various problems in his mobile set. Opposite party No.2 checked the said mobile set and found that the said set in question was already opened from the outsider unauthorized service centre and this fact was narrated to the complainant and further told that his said set did not come under the warranty and the complainant has to pay the cost of repair or the cost of parts, if any replaced. However, the complainant pressurized the opposite party No.2 to issue job sheet , but opposite party No.2 refused to accept the request of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant never approached opposite party No.2 and filed the present complaint. Ld.counsel for opposite party No.2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2 qua the complainant.
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased Karbon Mobile set from opposite party No.1 on 21.2.2014 vide invoice/bill Ex.C-3 with a warranty of one year. The said mobile set within the warranty period became defective and was not working at all. The complainant approached opposite party No.2, authorized service centre of Karbon company for the repair of the said mobile set . Opposite party No.2 service centre has admitted this fact that the complainant had approached opposite party No.2, authorized service centre of Karbon company within the warranty period of the mobile set. This fact has also been admitted by oppoite party No.2 that the complainant pressurized opposite party No.2 for issuing of job sheet, but opposite party No.2 did not issue the job sheet of the mobile set on the ground that the mobile set had already been opened by some unauthorized service centre, as such the repair, if any of the mobile set of the complainant shall be made on chargeable basis. But opposite party No.2 did not lead any evidence in this regard to prove that mobile set of the complainant had already been opened by some unauthorized service centre. Opposite partyNo.2 had taken the mobile set of the complainant but did not issue the job sheet to the complainant and the mobile set is still lying with the opposite party. All this itself amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 was bound to issue job sheet stating the actual facts in the job sheet. If opposite party No.2 found that the mobile set had already been opened by some unauthorized service centre , they should have mentioned these facts in the job sheet . But opposite party No.2 has neither mentioned this fact in the job sheet nor even they performed their duty properly by not issuing job sheet to the complainant. The mobile set has been still lying with opposite party No.2 and they have not returned the same to the complainant after repair despite the fact that the complainant served legal notice on the opposite parties No.1 & 2 through registered post , copy of which is Ex.C-5. Opposite parties neither submitted any reply to the legal notice served by the complainant upon the opposite parties No.1 & 2 nor the opposite party No.2 returned the mobile set of the complainant after repair. All this proves that the mobile set of the complainant became defective within the warranty period and opposite party No.2 failed to repair the same rather they failed to return the same to the complainant. All this fully proves that the mobile set of the complainant is not repairable, as such opposite parties No.2 & 3 are liable to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make and model or to refund the price of the mobile set to the complainant.
10. Resultantly we allow the complaint with costs and opposite parties No.2 & 3 are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make and model or to refund the price of the mobile set i.e. Rs. 6000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which opposite parties No.2 & 3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a on this amount of Rs. 6000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 are also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 1000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
21.09.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member
