Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/213/2014

Prince Saini S/o Om Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Duggal Mobile Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Anuj

29 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 213 of 2014.

                                                                                    Date of institution:06.05.2014.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 29.03.2016.

Prince Saini aged about 23 years son of Sh. Om Parkash, resident of village Kananju, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                           …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1.  Duggal Mobile Center, 4, Mela Singh Chowk, near Yes Bank, Yamuna Nagar-135001.
2. Karbonn Service Centre, near Metro Hotel, Workshop Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Prop./partner.    
3. Karbann Mobile Company, D-170, Near DD Motors, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-I, Delhi 110020 through its Managing Director.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Yajvender Singh. Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               Sh. Brijesh Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3.

               OP No.1 already given up.  

                

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Prince Saini has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 on the allegation that he had purchased one mobile set Karbonn A7*B+W, bearing EMEI No. 911211852706352 vide Bill No. 16042 dated 20.04.2014 for a sum of Rs. 5700/- from Op No.1 who is dealer of OP No.3 manufacturer and OP No.2 is service centre of OP No.3. At the time of purchasing the abovesaid mobile set in question, OP No.1 assured the complainant that in case of any default, the company will replace the defective mobile set immediately without any delay. After purchasing the aforesaid mobile phone, he saw that there was defect in the screen of aforesaid mobile set. On this, the complainant immediately approached the Op No.1 and told about the said defect, OP No.1 advised him to approach the OP No.2. The complainant visited the OP No.2 on 22.04.2014 and told about the defect in the mobile set. On this, the OP No.2 after seeing the defect told the complainant that he can get a new mobile set after a week as there is a manufacturing defect in it and they will get it replaced with a new one from OP No.3 and Op No.2 also took the original bill and mobile box from the complainant. After a week when complainant visited the OP No.2 to get back the aforesaid mobile phone, then OP No.2 averted the complainant by saying that they have not received the new mobile set, so he can get his mobile phone within 2/3 days. As such, the OPs averted the complainant on one pretext or other and till today the OP No.2 has not replaced the defective mobile set with new one. The aforesaid act of the OPs are clear cut deficient and unfair trade practice. Lastly prayed for directing the OPs to replace the defective mobile set with new one and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Upon notice, Ops No.2 & 3 appeared and filed its written statement whereas OP No.1 was given up by complainant vide order dated 9.9.2014. OPs No.2 & 3 filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is legally not maintainable, no locus standi or cause of action, estopped by his own act and conduct and on merit it has been mentioned that on 13.5.2014 DOA certificate was issued to the complainant for replacement of mobile phone with new one. However, the said DOA was valid upto 7 days from the date of its issue. It has been further mentioned that the defective mobile phone has also been given to the complainant in running condition with the direction to give the defective mobile phone to the dealer before receiving the new mobile phone but the complainant did not turn back and has filed the present complaint only to harass the OPs No.2 &3. However, the defective mobile phone has been got replaced with new one and the new mobile has been handed over to the complainant before this Forum on 27.11.2014. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2 & 3 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.                     To prove his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Bill of Mobile as Annexure C-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

4.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 made a statement that he does not want to file any document and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.2 & 3.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file carefully and minutely.

6.                     It is not disputed that the complainant has purchased the mobile set Karbonn A7*B+W, bearing EMEI No. 911211852706352 vide Bill No. 16042 dated 20.04.2014 for a sum of Rs. 5700/- from Op No.1, who is dealer of OP No.3 manufacturer and OP No.2 is service centre of OP No.3 which is evident from the bill Annexure C-1.

7.                     During the pendency of complaint, counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 made a statement on 9.9.2014 that a new mobile set of Duel SIM A-9 having same price was being handed over to the complainant alongwith its accessories in the Forum in lieu of old defective mobile set and requested for disposed off the complaint.

8.                     On the other hand, complainant made a statement that he has received new mobile set model A-19 Duel SIM in exchange from the OPs but requested for warranty of new mobile set as well as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

9.                     As the complainant has received the new mobile set from the OPs, hence now the only question remains that whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation on account of mental agony or harassment or not?

10.                   We have perused the purchased bill dated 20.4.2014 and as per this bill complainant purchased the mobile set in question on 20.4.2014 by paying a sum of Rs. 5700/- which was become defective with a short span of time and complainant was forced to file the present complaint on 6.5.2014 for the redressal of his grievances. Further more, as per the statement recorded of both the parties, the OPs No.2 & 3 have replaced the mobile set in question with new one on 9.9.2014 i.e. after a period of 5 months from the date of its purchase, as such, it is clear that complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment for the period of near about 5 months whereas now a days in the fast life style of the society, mobile set has become part and partial of the life of every person and due to huge demand of it, the companies are attracting consumers by adopting the different models of advertisement but at the same time after selling the same oftenly customers as well as consumers face a lot of problem even after paying the full cost of the same. Beneficiary companies taking huge amount in shape of profit, are duty bound to provide proper services till last satisfaction of the consumer.  Even the grievances of the complainant was not solved by the OPs at the level of service Centre and complainant was forced to knock the door of this Forum. Hence, we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled to get some relief on account of mental agony and harassment in the hands of OPs No.2 & 3.  

11.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs No.2 & 3 to pay a sum of Rs 1000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court: 29.03.2016                     

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

 

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.