Haryana

Panchkula

CC/139/2017

SUNIL KUMAR DUBEY - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEEP COMMUNIACTION - Opp.Party(s)

S.K SUD

15 May 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	139 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	14.07.2017
Date of Decision	:	15.05.2019

 

Sunil Kumar Dubey son of Late Sh. Baban Dubey, Plot No.373, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Panchkula.

                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

1. Deep Communications through its Proprietor, Authorized Dealer for Nokia, Samsung, Micromax, Hutch, BSNL, Connect, Canam Plaza, SCO No.46, Shop No.307, Sector 11, Panchkula. 

 

2. Micromax Care Center, through its Proprietor, SCO No.11, First Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula.

 

3. YU Televentures Pvt. Ltd., through its Director Plot No.21/14, Block A, Naraina, Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi-110028.                                                                   

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Mr.Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

For the Parties:   Mr. Nitin Sood, Advocate for the complainant. 

                        OP No.1 already ex-parte vide order dated 27.02.2019.

                        OP No.2 already ex-parte vide order dated 04.01.2019.

                        OP No.3 already ex-parte vide order dated  . 14.11.2018

 

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.     The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that on 19.12.2016, the complainant purchased a mobile phone make Yunique Plus with 2 GB Ram with IMEI No. 0911508952178655 & 0911508953178654 vide invoice No.11096 from OP No.1 (Deep communications) having warranty of one year. The OP No.1 also issued the warranty card but the same was not signed by him.  The said mobile phone worked properly for a period of five months but on 20.05.2017, suddenly, the mobile phone had stopped functioning. On the same day, the complainant approached the OP No.1 and OP No.1 kept the mobile phone and told him to come after half an hour. After half an hour, when complainant approached the OP No.1, he sent the complainant to OP No.3 (authorized service center). The officials of the OPs No.3 informed the complainant that the mobile in question was suffering from some manufacturing defect and same requires to be replaced. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP No.1, who asked the complainant to come after two days. On 22.05.2017, the complainant visited the No.1, where OP No.1 refused to get the mobile phone repaired or replaced it with a new one of the same model and make and also misbehaved with the complainant. On 03.06.2017, complainant got served a legal notice upon the OP No.1. The said notice has been duly received by the OP No.1 but it did not reply the same; this act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part; hence, this complaint.

2.     Notices were issued to the OPs No.1 to 3 through registered post (vide registered post No.EH624719124IN on 23.01.2019 to OP No.1, registered post No.EH783557527IN on 24.11.2018 to OP No.2 and registered post No. RH1448136IN on 11.10.2018 to OP No.3), which were not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to OPs No.1 to 3; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of Ops No.1 to 3, they were proceeded ex-parte by this Forum vide its order dated 27.02.2019, 04.01.2019 and 14.11.2018, respectively.

3.     To prove his case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure CA along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.     We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file minutely and carefully.

        It is evident that the complainant purchased a mobile phone make Yunique Plus with 2 GB Ram on 19.12.2016 vide invoice No.11096 for an amount of Rs.6200/- from OP No.1. Further, the said mobile carried a warranty of one year as is evident from a perusal of warranty card Annexure C-2. As per version of the complainant he contacted the OPs No.1 and 2 when he faced the problems with regard to the functioning of the mobile; but finding no response, he has issued a legal notice Annexure C-3 through his counsel, but the same also could not evoke any response from the OPs. Finding no response from the OPs, the complainant has approached this Forum.   

5.     During arguments the complainant reiterated the facts and version as contained in the complaint, affidavit Annexure CA and document Annexure C-1 to C-3 and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

6.     The OPs did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded ex-parte, for which adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them. The non-appearance of the OPs despite notice shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

On the other hand, the version of the complainant is fully supported and corroborated by his affidavit Annexure CA, along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-3. Though we do not find any job sheet on record in support of the contention of the complainant that the mobile set had manufacturing defect in it yet the version of the complainant as contained in Paras No.3 and 4 of the complaint regarding manufacturing defect in the mobile set is duly corroborated by his affidavit Annexure CA, which is uncontroverted and unrebutted.

7.     In view of the fact that the OPs neither responded to the notice nor have they opted to controvert the precise cognizable averments made by the complainant having a very relevant bearing upon the adjudication of the grievance, the only distilled view is that the complainant has been able to prove the genuineness of the grievance that the OPs had committed deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been detailed in the complaint, as also the affidavit in support thereof. With regard to liability of the OP No.1 we may rely upon the order of Hon’ble State Commission, West Bangal in case titled as Printer Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kartick Chandra Das and others., 2017(3) CLT 411, wherein it has been held that the dealer is equally responsible along with manufacturer to supply the defect free goods to the consumers so that the later get proper value of their hard-earned money. Thus, we hold that all the OPs are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency and unfair trade practice.  Hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

8.     As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs:-

1. That the Ops will replace the mobile set of the complainant as purchased vide Invoice Annexure C-1 with new mobile set of the same model having the same features/configuration and in case Ops are not able to replace the mobile set with new one of the same model having the same features/configuration then in that eventuality the Ops shall refund the amount of Rs.6200/- to the complainant without any interest.

 

2. The Ops shall pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and further to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation charges.

9.     The OPs shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OPs failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the OPs. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.  

 

Announced

15.05.2019      Dr.Sushma Garg   Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal

                            Member              Member                              President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                         Satpal

                                         President