Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/40/2017

Baljit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhalla Watch & Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

16 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.         :     40 of 2017

Date of Institution                             :     18.08.2017

Date of Decision:                    :     16.04.2018

Baljit Singh son of Ram Parkash Resident of Ward No.5, Balachaur, Tehsil Balachaur, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. 

                                                                             …Complainant

Versus

1. Bhalla Watch & Mobile, Bhaddi Road, Tehsil Balachaur, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar through owner.
2. Apra Trader, Lava Service Centre, Chandigarh Road, Nawanshahr, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, through Centre Incharge.
3. Lava International Limited, A-56, Sector – 64, Noida – 201301, UP, India through General Manager.

          …Opposite Parties

                             Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH.A.P.S. RAJPURT, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:

For complainant            :         In person.

For OP No.1                  :         Ex parte.

For OP No.2&3             :         Sh.Ravinder Parmar, Advocate

 

ORDER

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

        Complainant filed present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by alleging that complainant purchased new mobile of Lava Company model Pixel V2 (White), double SIM having EMI No.9114694022146885 amounting to Rs.8,200/- vide bill No.919 dated 12.10.2016 from OP No.1.  The owner of shop has provided one warrant of said mobile and also assured that if any problem occurred, the his mobile was set right on priority basis at OP No.2.  On assurance of OP No.1, he purchased said mobile which working ok for six month but thereafter it started giving problem in charging and in April 2017, he submitted his mobile set with OP No.2 through OP-1, then after keeping the said mobile set with it, they return the said mobile after rectification, thereafter, the said mobile set running OK for some days, started giving problem and on 10.07.2017, he again submitted the mobile set with OP-2 but till date they not returned the mobile set and postponed the matter under excuse of other.  On repeated contact, they disclosed that the software of mobile was not OK and they lodged complaint No.262809 and also lodged work order No.510013081399.  Further, it is averred that complainant has purchased the said mobile for his comfort and business purpose, but instead of that he not feel comfort from its purchase rather he suffered a lot.   Due to this reason, the complainant has been suffered with great mental agony & finance loss.  Lastly prayer has been made for replacement of mobile set or refund of payment and also claimed for Rs.25,000/- as compensation.

2.       Upon notice, OP No.1 has failed to appeared and ultimately proceeded against ex parte.  OP No.2&3 have filed written version stating therein that complaint is not maintainable.  Complaint of complainant without any technical report is not maintainable.  Complainant has not come with clean hands.  Complainant has got no locus standi.  No cause of action has arisen against answering OPs.  Complaint is nothing but an outcome of mere sheer and greed of the mind of complainant.  Complaint of complainant is baseless and a result of colorful legal advice just to grab unlawful benefits from the answering OPs.  It is admitted that complainant approached to answering OPs.  Vide call No.510012068894 dated 20.03.2017 and reported charging issue in his unit.  The Engineers of Service Centre thoroughly checked the unit and resolved the problem and complainant took the delivery of unit with his full satisfaction.  After that the complainant again approached the answering OPs on 14.07.2017 vide work order No.5100130224205 and 19.07.2017 W.O. No.510013076975 and both time reported no charging issue in his unit.  The engineer of service centre checked the unit and resolved the issued and the complainant took delivery of unit to his full satisfaction.  After that complainant again approached the answering OP on 03.08.2017 W.O. No.510013212189 and reported the said problem in the unit and the issue got resolved and after that officials of service centre contacted the complainant and told that unit is in OK condition and is ready for delivery, but the complainant refused to take delivery of unit.  After that the officials of service centre contacted to complainant many time telephonically via mobile No.9464017420 from 14.08.2017 onwards and requested to complainant to took delivery of unit but all in vain.  After that answering OPs sent an intimation letter dated 15.09.2017 vide registered post and duly informed to complainant that the unit is ready for delivery but the complainant did not took the attention to said letter and refused to take the delivery.  The answering OPs is renowned company in Electronic Products and Commodities and is manufacturing Electronic products for the past several years.  The technology used by company in manufacturing the World Class Electronic Products is highly sophisticated.  It is submitted that complaint is filed without any expert opinion which will prove that the unit is not working properly and merely by the oral version of complainant, it cannot be ascertain that the unit is not working properly.  On merits, the answering Ops have reproduced all the submission as mentioned in preliminary objections. Lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant be dismissed.

4.       On being called to do so, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence.  Learned counsel for OP No.2&3 have tendered in evidence affidavit of Amardeep Singh Ex.OP2/A alongwith photocopies of documents Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/4 and closed the evidence.

5.       We have heard the complainant and counsel for OP No.2&3 and have also gone through the record carefully.

6.       Complainant has argued that he purchased new mobile of Lava Company model Pixel V2 (White), double SIM having EMI No.9114694022146885 amounting to Rs.8,200/- vide bill No.919 dated 12.10.2016 from OP No.1.  The owner of shop has provided one warrant of said mobile and also assured that if any problem occurred, the his mobile was set right on priority basis at OP No.2.  On assurance of OP No.1, he purchased said mobile which working ok for six month but thereafter it started giving problem in charging and in April 2017, said mobile after rectification, thereafter, the said mobile set running OK for some days, started giving problem and on 10.07.2017, he again submitted the mobile set with OP-2 but till date they not returned the mobile set. On repeated contact, they disclosed that the software of mobile was not OK and they lodged complaint No.262809 and also lodged work order No.510013081399.  Further, he argued that he has purchased the said mobile for his comfort and business purpose. Due to this reason, the complainant has been suffered with great mental agony & finance loss and prayed for relief claim.

7.       Learned counsel for OP-2&3 has argued that complaint of complainant without any technical report is not maintainable.  No cause of action has arisen against answering OPs.  Complaint is nothing but an outcome of mere sheer and greed of the mind of complainant.  Complaint of complainant is baseless and a result of colorful legal advice just to grab unlawful benefits from the answering OPs.  It is admitted that complainant approached to answering OPs.  Vide call No.510012068894 dated 20.03.2017 and reported charging issue in his unit.  The Engineers of Service Centre thoroughly checked the unit and resolved the problem and complainant took the delivery of unit with his full satisfaction.  After that the complainant again approached the answering OPs on 14.07.2017 vide work order No.5100130224205 and 19.07.2017 W.O. No.510013076975 and both time reported no charging issue in his unit.  Complainant again approached the answering OP on 03.08.2017 W.O. No.510013212189 and reported the said problem in the unit and the issue got resolved and after that officials of service centre contacted the complainant and told that unit is in OK condition and is ready for delivery, but the complainant refused to take delivery of unit.  Complaint is filed without any expert opinion which will prove that the unit is not working properly and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  

8.       Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and directed to the OPs No.2&3 that in case the hand set could not be rectified within 30 days then the OPs are directed to replace the mobile in question and further if the same model of mobile in question is not available then the invoice price of mobile be refunded to complainant by OPs No.2&3.  Further, the OP No.2&3 are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to complainant as compensation.

9.       Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

10.     File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Dated:  16.04.2018

 

  

(Kanwaljeet Singh)       (A.P.S. Rajput)

Member                         President