DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 257 of 2.11.2015
Decided on: 29.9.2016
Kuldeep Sood D/o S.Nand Singh R/o 147-F, Partap Nagar, Patiala-14700, Punjab (INDIA).
…………...Complainant
Versus
- Cell Hut, Dharampura Bazar, Opposite Sapra Foam, Patiala.
- M/s Ganesh Electricals, S.C.O.27, First Floor, City Center, Near 22 No. Phatak, Bhupindra Road, Patiala.
- Micromax Informatics, Micromax House, 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase V, Gurgaon, Haryana.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Smt.Kuldeep Sood, complainant in person.
Sh.Vipan Sharma, Adv. counsel for
Opposite Parties No.2&3.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Smt. Kuldeep Sood, complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To return the total amount of mobile i.e. Rs.5800/-
- To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of harassment alongwith litigation expenses.
- Any other relief , which this Forum may deem fit.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that she purchased a mobile hand set make Micromax 104, vide bill No.43 dated 10.4.2015 for an amount of Rs.5800/- from Op no.1.After 5-6 days of its purchase, the same went out of order such as display problem started occurring. At this, she contacted the service centre of Micromax on 19.4.2015, who suggested her to deposit the mobile hand set with it. Accordingly, she deposited the mobile hand set with the service centre. On 23/24/5/2015, she received back the mobile set after repair. But after month there started occurring touch problem.She again deposited the set with the service centre. After 10 days she received back the same after repair. But the same again after 20-25 days started giving the problems of touch and software.She again deposited the mobile set with the service centre. At this time, she requested the service centre either to repair the mobile properly or to refund the price of the same. Due to non working of the mobile set properly and non repair of the same again and again by the service centre, she suffered great mental tension, pain and agony.Thus there is deficiency of service. Hence this complaint.
3. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against Op no.2 only, who on put to notice appeared through counsel and filed the written version. Sh.Vipin Sharma,Adv. counsel for Op no.2 filed an application for impleading Micromax Informatics, Micromax House, 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase V, Gurgaon, Haryana, which was allowed and filed the amended complaint. On put to notice Op no.3 also appeared through Sh.Vipin Sharma,advocate and filed the written version.In the written version, filed on behalf of Op no.2, it denied the allegations of the complainant regarding the mobile set gone out of order and display started occurring .She never deposited the mobile phone with it at any point of time. The Op no.2 has also denied the other allegations made in the complaint and has prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In the written version, filed on behalf of Op No.3, it is denied that after 5-6 days of the purchase of mobile set, the same went out of order and started giving problems of display and touch, due to which she contacted the service centre of Micromax on 19.4.2015 and deposited the mobile with it. It is also denied that she received the set back on 23/24.5.2015 after repair. The complainant has not attached any proof regarding the same. It is also denied that after 20-25 days, the mobile set again started giving problem of touch and software and the complainant again deposited the same with the service centre. It is stated that the complainant has not deposited her mobile set with Op no.2 at any point of time. There is no deficiency of service on its part.After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. In support of her complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA her sworn affidavit, Ex.C1 copy of Bankers Cheque,Ex.C2 copy of retail invoice, Ex.C3 copy of job sheet dated 21.9.2015, Exs.C4 & C5 copies of receipts regarding repair of mobile set and closed the evidence.
On 24.8.2016, the learned counsel for the Ops No.2&3 submitted that the said O.Ps do not want to lead any evidence and the evidence of the O.ps No.2&3 be closed by order. Accordingly the evidence of O.Ps No.2&3 was closed by order.
6. We have heard the complainant, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. No.2&3 and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7. The grievance of the complainant is that the mobile set, which she had purchased from O.P No.1 on 10.4.2015, vide bill Ex.C2, for an amount of Rs.5800/- got defective after 5-6 days of its purchase. Inspite of taking the mobile phone repeatedly to Ganesh Electrical, the authorized service centre of Micromax, i.e. Op No.2, it could not rectify the defect. She deposited her mobile set for its repair, with the service centre, for the last time on 21.9.2015 and told the concerned person of the service centre either to repair the mobile set properly or to refund the price of the same. But when nothing was done by the O.P No.2 even after lapse of a long period, she was left with no alternative but to purchase a new mobile set. Hence, It is prayed that the O.Ps. be directed to refund the cost of the mobile set i.e. Rs.5800/- and pay compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by her.
8. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the O.Ps. No.2&3 submitted that the complainant has wrongly alleged that her mobile phone got defective immediately after its purchase because no job card regarding the same has been placed on record by her. She has approached O.P. No.2 for the first time, for the repair of the mobile phone in question only on 21.9.2015, as is evident from the copy of Job sheet Ex.C3. Thereafter, she never came to collect the mobile phone despite of repeated reminders. For the said act of the complainant, the O.Ps can not be held liable. Hence the present complaint be dismissed.
9. The complainant has placed on record only copy of one job sheet bearing No.90208-0915-19298395, Ex.C3.From the said job sheet, it is evident that the complainant deposited her mobile set for its repair with the O.P. No.2 on 21.9.2015.From the copies of communications,Ex.C5, it is apparent that the O.P.No.2 informed the complainant that her mobile set has been repaired and told her to collect it from the service center, for the first time on 15.1.2016,almost about after three and a half months from the date of deposit of mobile set by the complainant with it. It may be stated that these days having a mobile set is a basic necessity and due to non repair of the mobile set by O.P. No.2 in time, the complainant was deprived of using the same and was compelled to buy a new mobile hand set. Facing with this situation, we are of the view that it is a fit case, where the complainant is entitled to get the refund of the price of the mobile set in question. Since this delay is attributable to O.P.No.2, therefore, it is liable to refund the price of the mobile set to the complainant. The O.P. No.3, i.e. manufacturer, is vicariously liable for the negligent act of its authorized service center, thus, it is also liable to refund the cost of the mobile set in question to the complainant alongwith O.P. No.2. Not only this, the O.Ps. No.2&3 are also liable to pay compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment, suffered by the complainant.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint against O.Ps No.2&3 and direct them in the following manner:
- To refund Rs.5800/- i.e. the cost of the mobile set in question, to the complainant.
- To pay Rs.2500/- as compensation and litigation costs.
The O.Ps.No.2&3 are further directed to comply with the order jointly and severally, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The file be indexed and consigned to the record room.
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
Dated:29.9.2016
