THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 105 of 2015
Date of Institution : 23.2.2015
Date of Decision : 28.07.2015
S. Gurjeet Singh S/o S. Jatinder Singh r/o H.No. 61-A, Sandhu Avenue, G.T.Road, Chheharta, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Daze Digital Pvt.Ltd., (GGN) 578, Sector 10-A, Gurgaon through its principal officer
Jasbir Telecom, Opp. Kali Da Dhaba, Jail Road, Near Kichlu Chowk, Amritsar through its Partner/Prop./Manager
M/s. Perfect Mobile Repair Centre, Shop No. 19-20, Simran Plaza, Queens Road, Amritsar through its Partner/Prop./Manager
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Inderjit Lakhra,Advocate
For the opposite parties No.1 to 3 : Ex-parte
For opposite party No.2 : Sh. Sanjeet Singh,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
-2-
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Gurjeet Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased one mobile set Intex Aqua bearing IMEI No. 911336150506497 from opposite party No.1 online through flipkart for a sum oif Rs. 7189/- vide invoice No. 12221 dated 12.2.2014 with one year warranty. According to the complainant the mobile set became defective in the month of November 2014 i.e. within the warranty period. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 being service centre and brought to their notice the defects, who checked the same and kept the same with them for its repair vide job sheet dated 8,.11.2014 and asked the complainant to come after 10/12 days. The complainant visited opposite party No.2 after 10/12 days but they told that it was not set right and it will also take some more time . Accordingly the complainant visited them from time to time but to no avail. The complainant was not satisfied with the company service as the problem in the set remained the same . Complainant has alleged that he was guided by Mr. Deepak Behal of opposite party No.2 to visit new service centre at Crystal Chowk, Amritsar i.e. opposite party No.3. The complainant approached opposite party No.3 and brought to their notice the defects / problem in the set . They kept the set against
-3-
job sheet No. 5010259290177001 dated 2.1.2015 giving the details of the problem and he was asked to come after 15 days . The complainant visited opposite party No.3 after 15 days but they again told the complainant to visit some other date . The complainant made several visits to opposite party No.3 from time to time and since 2.1.2015 the mobile set is lying with them. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to hand over the new set of the same make and model or to refund the price of the same alongwith interest @ 18% p.a from the date of purchase till payment,. Compensation of Rs. 25000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. Opposite parties No. 1 & 3 did not appear and they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 27.3.2015. Initially Jasbir Arora, proprietor of opposite party No.2 appeared on 27,.3.2015 and the case was adjourned for filing written version by opposite party No.2. Thereafter Jasbir Singh, Proprietor of opposite party No.2 filed an application that they have left the service centre of the manufacturer company. As such the case is adjourned for evidence of the complainant. Thereafter Sh. Sanjeet Singh ,Advocate appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 and by that time the case was adjourned for evidence of the complainant.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of invoice Ex.C-2, copy of service request Ex.C-3, copy of job sheet Ex.C-4, copy of service request Ex.C-5, copy of job sheet Ex.C-6, copy of e-mail Ex.C-7.
-4-
4. Opposite party No.3 tendered affidavit of Sh.Jasbir Singh Ex.OP2/1, resignation letter Ex.OP2/2, e-mail letter Ex.OP2/3, inward delivery challan Ex.OP2/4,outward delivery challan Ex.OP2/5.
5. We have carefully gone through the averment of the complainant , 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 the complainant and opposite party No.2.
6. From the record i.e. averment of the complainant and the evidence produced on record by the complainant and opposite party No.2, it is clear that complainant purchased mobile set Intex Aqua manufactured by opposite party No.1 online for a sum of Rs. 7189/- vide invoice No. 12221 dated 12.2.2014 Ex.C-2 having one year warranty. The complainant submitted that the said mobile set became defective/totally unfunctional in November 2012. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 vide job sheet dated 8.11.2014 Ex.C-3 and handed over the mobile set to opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 handed over the said mobile set to the complainant on 28.12.2014 after repair. But the mobile set again did not function properly and was having the same problem. The complainant approached opposite party No.2, who gave in writing Ex.C-4 that the complainant should visit service centre at Crystal Chowk, Amritsar i.e. Perfect Mobile Care Centre i.e. opposite party No.3. Resultantly the complainant approached opposite
-5-
party No.3 vide job sheet Ex.C-5 dated 2.1.2015 , but opposite party No.3 could not repair the mobile set and again issued job sheet dated 29.1.2015 Ex.C-6. But even then opposite party No.3 also could not repair the mobile set. Since 2.1.2015 the mobile set has been lying with opposite party No.3 and the same could not be repaired. Opposite parties have failed to repair the mobile set or to replace the same with new one or to refund the amount/price of the mobile set to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
7. Whereas case of opposite party No.2 is that the complainant approached the opposite party for the first time in November 2014 with the report of display problem,. The mobile was not functioning. The complainant was given job sheet Ex.C-3 dated 11.8.2014. The mobile set was got repaired from the company and was handed over to the complainant on 28.12.2014 by opposite party No.2. Thereafter opposite party No.2 has left the agency/service centre of opposite party No.1. The mobile set of the complainant did not function properly and he again approached the opposite party No.2, who vide writing Ex.C-4 advised the complainant to approach the new service centre i.e. opposite party No.3 as the opposite party No.2 is no more service centre of opposite party No.1. So ld.counsel for opposite party No.2 stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2 qua the complainant.
-6-
8. From the entire above discussion , we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question from opposite party No.1 online vide invoice dated 12.2.2014 Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 7189/-. The said mobile set became defective as its display stopped functioning. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 vide job sheet dated 8.11.2014 Ex.C-3. Opposite party No.2 repaired the mobile set of the complainant and handed over the same to the complainant on 28.12.2014 . But the mobile set did not function properly and was having the same defect. The complainant again approached opposite party No.2 but opposite party by that time left the agency of opposite party No.1 and they requested the complainant to approach new service centre of opposite party No.1 i.e. opposite party No.3 vide writing Ex.C-4. Then the complainant approached opposite party No.3 vide job sheet dated 2.1.2015 Ex.C-5 and handed over the mobile set to opposite party No.3. But opposite party No.3 could not repair the mobile set of the complainant and they again issued another job sheet dated 29.1.2015 Ex.C-6. Opposite party No.3 failed to repair the mobile set of the complainant and make it fully functional. The mobile set of the complainant has been lying with opposite party No.3 since 2.1.2015. None appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.1 to rebut the case of the complainant nor any person from opposite parties No.1 and 3 dared to file any affidavit to counter the evidence of the complainant. So it stands fully proved on record that
-7-
opposite party No.3 failed to repair the mobile set of the complainant and this fora has been left with no other alternative but to presume that the mobile set of the complainant is not repairable . Therefore, opposite party No.1 is 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.
9. Resultantly we allow the complaint with costs against opposite parties No.1 & 3 thereby opposite parties No.1 and 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 of the complainant i.e. Rs. 7189/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order ; failing which opposite parties No.1 & 3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite parties No.1 & 3 are also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- 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.
28.7.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
