Punjab

Moga

CC/15/96

Raman Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dhanjal Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Ajit Verma

26 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                                                                                                                                            CC No. 96 of 2015

                                                                                                                                                            Instituted on : 09.12.2015

                                                                                                                                                             Decided on: 26.04.2016

 

Raman Kumar aged about 56 years, son of Amar Nath C/o Dev Samaj Sen. Sec. School, 9 New Town Moga, District Moga.

 

                                                                          ……… Complainant

 

                                 Versus

 

1.Dhanjal Communication, Authorized Micromax Service Centre, Shop No. 6, 1^st Floor, Puri Complex, Near Bus Stand Moga, District Moga.

 

2.Mohindra Telecom, Near Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School, Main Bazar Moga, District Moga.

 

3.Micromax Service Centre, Ist Floor, Red Cross Building, Near Police Station - City-1, Moga, District Moga.

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

          Complaint u/S 12/14  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Coram :     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President,

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member.

 

Present:      Sh. Ajit Verma, Adv.Cl. for complainant.  

                   Opposite Parties No. 1 to 3 - Ex-parte.

 

ORDER :

 

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

 

1.                 Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12/14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against Dhanjal Communication, Authorized Micromax Service Centre, Shop No. 6, 1^st Floor, Puri Complex, Near Bus Stand Moga, District Moga and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) for directing them to replace/give back the Micromax Mobile, bearing Model CANVAS 2.2, IMEI Number 91134350120191919 and further directing the opposite parties to pay claim of Rs. 25,000/- on account of mental tension, mental and physical harassment and deficiency in services, Rs.25,000/- on account of loss caused to the complainant due to the illegal act of the opposite parties and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses. 

2.                 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 17.02.2014, the complainant had purchased a Micromax Mobile Canvas 2.2., IMEI No. 91134350120191919 for a sum of Rs. 11,300/- from opposite party No. 2, vide bill No. 4366 dated 17.02.2014. At the time of purchase of the said mobile, OP No. 2 gave warranty for one year regarding any problem in the mobile phone.  Complainant informed OP No. 2 that it was a defective mobile, who referred him to the Service Centre i.e. OP No. 1. Complainant gave his mobile to OP No. 1 for repair on 15.09.2014 and again on 18.09.2014, as it was within warranty period. But the opposite parties did not return the mobile to the complainant and are prolonging the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant also got served a legal notice upon the opposite parties, but of no avail. Complainant filed a complaint u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act in this  Forum in which the opposite parties agreed to give sufficient services to complainant and compromised with complainant on 29.1.2015 and assured him that the opposite parties have removed all the defects in the mobile phone.  But after few days, again the mobile phone stopped functioning. Opposite parties again issued a job sheet No. 132 dated 28.2.2015 to complainant. Then, again after few days complainant approached the office of OP No. 1, but it was found closed. Thereafter, complainant visited  the offices opposite parties No. 2 and 3, who refused to admit his  claim and did not return the mobile phone. Complaint again got issued a legal notice upon the opposite parties, but all in vain.  Hence, this complaint.       

3.                 Upon notice, Sh. Sudir Kumar, Proprietor appeared on behalf of OP No. 2 on 15.1.2016 and filed written reply supported with affidavit by taking certain preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP; that the complainant has got no locus-standi; that no deficiency in service has been attributed to the OP; that complaint of the complainant is false, frivolous, baseless, vague and malicious, therefore, in the event of dismissal of the complaint the OP is entitled to special costs as provided under the Act; that the answering OP has been dragged into litigation unnecessarily; that the answering OP is not liable for any warranty of the said mobile as the warranty is provided by the manufacturing company through their service centre; that the complainant himself admitted in his complaint that he had handed over the mobile phone to OP No. 3, so there is no liability of the answering OP. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. Other allegations made in the complaint have also been denied.

4.                Vide order dated 22.3.2016, OP No. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte. Whereas, OP No. 3 was duly served, but it  did not appear.  Hence, OP No. 3 was  proceeded against ex-parte.  Vide order dated 10.03.2016, OP No. 2 was also proceeded against ex-parte.

5.                 In ex-parte evidence, ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence  duly sworn affidavit of complainant - Ex. C-1 along with  copies of documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-7 and closed the  evidence of the complainant.

6.                          We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through record placed on file.

7.                In exparte arguments, Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant purchased a Micromax Mobile worth Rs.11,300/-from OP-2 on assurance of one year warranty, but it was a defective mobile set and when complainant approached OP-2 and brought this fact to the notice of OP-2, OP-2 referred him to go to Op-1, who is authorized Service Centre of Ops. Complainant handed over the defective mobile set to OP-1 as said mobile was under warranty period, but OP-1 did not return the mobile phone and kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Despite legal notice, OPs did not return his mobile and then, he filed complaint before District Consumer Forum, Moga, where OPs admitted their fault and made compromise with complainant by assuring that they have removed all the defects from the said mobile set, but even thereafter, said mobile stopped functioning and became out of order. Complainant again approached OP-1, who issued him job sheet no. 132 dt. 28.02.2015. After some days, he again visited to shop of OP-1 and found it closed and he visited to shop of OP-2, who referred him to go to OP-3. When complainant approached OP-3, it refused to admit the claim of complainant and paid no heed to his request to return the mobile set. Complainant also issued legal notice to OPs, but that also bore no fruit as they neither gave any reply to notice, nor returned his mobile after repair. Complainant visited the office of OPs many times and made requests to them to repair and return his mobile, but all in vain. All this has caused great harassment and mental tension to complainant. Ld Counsel for Complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint and has also requested for compensation and litigation expenses. He has stressed on affidavit Ex C-1, in which all the pleadings made in complaint are reiterated and documents Ex C-2 to C-7.

8.                From the careful Scruitinization of evidence and documents placed on record and hearing the exparte arguments advanced by complainant, it is observed that bill dt. 17.02.2014 which is Ex. C-2 proves the fact that complainant is the consumer of OPs, job sheet no. 132 dt. 28.02.2015 Ex C-3, which is issued by OPs also makes clear the pleading of complainant that mobile set sold by OPs was defective and it was received by Ops at 10.33 am from complainant. Ex. C-4 is the copy of legal notice issued by complainant to OPs. It reveals the fact that OPs received defective mobile set from complainant but did not return the same to complainant after repairs and due to harassment caused by Ops, complainant had to issue legal notice to them. Complainant has produced sufficient evidence to prove his case and it proves that Ops have been deficient in providing proper services to complainant and complainant has to suffer unnecessarily for his genuine claim.                     

9.                In the light of above discussion and keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are fully convinced with the pleadings and evidence led by complainant and therefore, complaint  in hand is hereby accepted with direction to OPs to replace the defective mobile set of complainant with new one of same model within one month of receipt of the copy of the order and in case of failure to pay the price of mobile  with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing the complaint till final realization. OPs are further directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- (Three thousand only) to complainant for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000/- (Two thousand only). Compliance of this order be made within one month of date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 26.04.2016

                  

(Bhupinder Kaur)                               (Ajit Aggarwal )

        Member                                                President