Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/430/2014

Pardeep Saini s/o Sh.Om Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhalla Communications - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Kumar

08 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                        Complaint No.430 of 2014.

                                                                                        Date of institution:9.10.2014.

                                                                                        Date of decision: 8.12.2015.

Pardeep Saini aged about 37 years, son of Shri Om Parkash, resident of Village Daulatpura, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                           …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Bhalla Communication, Ist Floor, Bank of Baroda, Fountain Chowk, Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor.  
2. Singh Communication Spice Care Authorized Service Center, SCO II First Floor, Opp. English Wine Shop, Sabzi Chowk, Near Yamuna Nagar Club, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, through its Proprietor.
3. Spice Mobility Ltd. Spice Global Knowledge Park, 19-A and 19-B, Sector125 Noida-through its Managing Director.                                                                                                                             …opposite parties.

Before:            SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Dinesh Sharma Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

                OP No.1 already ex-parte.

                Sh. Rajan Bhatia, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.2 & 3. 

                

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Pardeep Saini has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to replace the defective mobile set of complainant with new one of the same brand and specifications or to refund the invoice price and further to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment, agony and loss suffered by him. 

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant purchased one Spice Mobile Set MI 502N bearing IEMI No. 9113337052121047 from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.3 for an amount of Rs. 6600/- vide Invoice No. 5586 dated 21.2.2014. It has been further alleged that soon after purchase, the mobile set started giving problem inspite of fully charged, it used to break down and when re-start intermittently, it used to switch off again and he informed to OP No.1  on 20.5.2014, who asked him to approach to OP No.2 service centre of OP No.3. On this, the complainant approached to OP No.2 in the month of May 2014 and after repair, the set was returned to the complainant with new IMEI No. 911337052121054 vide job sheet No. 07100209E-691212 and it was further assured that he will not face any such problem in future. To the utter surprise, after bout two months, the mobile set with new IMEI Number again started giving the same problem due to manufacturing defect. The complainant further approached to Op No.2 who kept the mobile with it in the last week of August 2014 with the assertion to collect it after one week. Thereafter, the complainant visited the OP NO.2 time and again for collecting his mobile but all in vain and till date the OP No.2 has not returned the mobile set to the complainant and the same is lying in the custody of OP No.2. Finding no other alternative, the complainant got issued a registered AD legal notice dated 10.9.2014 to the OPs to replace the defective mobile with new one of the same model or to refund the entire amount of invoice and claimed compensation of Rs. 50000/- but the OPs insptie of receipt of that notice, have not complied with the said legal notice. As such the complainant has suffered and is still suffering great mental agony, pain and torture at the hands of OPs which amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint. 

3.                     Upon notice OP No. 1 failed to appear despite service through registered AD, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22.12.2014. However Sh. Rajan Bhatia, Advocate, appeared on behalf of OPs No.2 & 3 and filed written statement on behalf of OPs No.2 & 3 by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is wholly misconceived and groundless and is liable to be dismissed, no deficiency on the part of OPs, no locus standi and on merit it is submitted that the complainant never informed the authorized service centre about the problems like break down, re-start, switch off. In fact the complainant for the first time visited the service centre on 21.5.2014 with touch screen problem. The handset was thoroughly checked and problem was successfully resolved and the handset was handed over to complainant on 22.5.2014. It has been further stated that the complainant approached the service centre on 11.6.2014 and the handset was thoroughly cheked and it was found that touch pad of the handset was broken and the handset was rejected at the entry level to be considered under the limited warranty and accordingly the handset was declared warranty void. The complainant was intimated accordingly and he was asked to pay requisite charges for repairing the handset. Copy of the job sheet dated 11.6.2014 is attached herewith. Original job sheet is lying with the complainant. The complainant neither paid the charges nor collected the handset from the service centre. These facts have been suppressed by the complainant in his complaint and this he is trying to mislead this Forum and accordingly, the complaint is liable to be dismissed at cost and the complainant be directed to get the handset collected from service centre after paying requisite charges. The allegations of defect/default/negligence or deficiency in service are wholly misconceived, groundless, false and untenable and the complainant has not suffered any mental agony and physical harassment and financial loss due to OPs No.2 &.3 and prayed for dismissal of complaint

4.                     To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/1 and documents such as Bill dated 21.2.2014 for a sum of Rs. 6600/- as Annexure C-1, Copy of registered AD legal notice as Annexure C-2, Postal receipts as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of Acknowledgement as Annexure C-4 and closed his evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 made a statement that they do not want to lead any evidence and closed the evidence.  

6.         We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file carefully and minutely.

7.                     From the perusal of Annexure C-1, which is copy of bill, it is evident that the complainant purchased the spice Mobile set vide bill No. 5586 dated 21.2.2014 for Rs. 6600/-. The counsel for the complainant argued that at the time of purchasing the abovesaid mobile, it was assured by the said seller that the mobile would provide best service to him and there will be no complaint in the mobile in future and have given the guarantee/warranty of one year of the mobile in question and further assured the complainant that if any complaint or defect arises in the model then the same will be replaced with new one without any delay. It has been further argued that the said mobile after some time from the date of purchase started not properly functioning and immediately he informed the OP No.1. Learned counsel for the complainant further alleged that the defects were brought into the notice of opposite party No.2 who kept the mobile set with it in last week of August, 2014 with the assertion to collect it after one week but they failed to remove the defect form the mobile and did not return the same till date. Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for OPs No.2 & 3 argued that complainant has concocted a false and frivolous story just to replace his mobile set with new one. The complainant first time visited the service centre on 21.5.2014 with touch screen problem and the same was thoroughly checked and problem was successfully resolved and the same was returned to the complainant on 22.5.2014. Learned counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 further argued that second time the complainant approached the service centre on 11.6.2014 and after checked it was found that touch pad of the handset was broken and the handset was rejected at the entry level and he was intimated to pay requisite charges for repairing the hand set. The complainant neither paid the charges nor collected the handset from the service centre. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.                     From the perusal of job sheet bearing No. 07100870E50249 dated 22.5.2014, it is clear that the mobile set in question was having touch screen problem which was repaired by the OP No.2 Service Centre of OP No.3 but complainant within a few days again faced the problem of the touch screen and visited the service centre i.e. Op No.2 which is evident from the job sheet bearing No. 07100209E60121 dated 11.6.2014 and in this job sheet the problem of touch has been shown as broken by OP No.2. As the complainant faced second time problem of touch screen within a few days i.e. between 22.5.2014 to 11.6.2014, it shows that earlier touch screen was not properly affixed by OP No.2 and due to that complainant again suffered hardship. Even on the other hand, OP No.2 or OP No.3 has not filed any affidavit of any service engineer who attend the mobile in question of the complainant stating therein that the touch screen of the mobile set in question was broken due to the fault of the complainant and not due to the mishandling or not put the mobile set in question in proper working condition by OP No.2. In case, the mobile set of the complainant was not repairable at the very outset then it should not be accepted by the OPs No.2 & 3 and has not withheld the mobile set of the complainant for about 1 ½ months without any reasons. As such it is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2 and 3 as they failed to repair the mobile set of the complainant without charges during the currency of warranty period.    

10.                   We are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for relief qua repair of his mobile set. Hence, we direct the OPs No.2 & 3 to repair the mobile phone of complainant and set it right in proper working order free of costs and hand over the same to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the preparation of copy of this order failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. As such, the complaint is partly allowed in above terms.  Copies of this order be sent to parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court: 8.12.2015.                     

 

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                    MEMBER