Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/791

Abhinav Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Easy Day Market - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Chand Adv.

27 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 791 of 18.11.2014

Date of Decision            :   27.01.2016 

 

Abhinav Sharma aged about 31 years son of Shri Gopal Krishan Sharma, resident of B-2400/66, Friends Colony, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.Easy Day Market, Bharti Retail Limited, Silver Arc Mall, LGF&GF, B202681, 621/622, Gurdev Nagar, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana-I.

2.Dhir Electronics, Gaushala Road, Near Division No.3, Ludhiana, Authorized Service Centre for Karbon, K-Touch Mobiles.

3.Karbon Mobiles, #39/13, Off.7^th Main Hal 2^nd Stage, Appareddy Palya, Indra Nagar, Banglore-560038.

…Opposite parties

 

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

                                                                                                                                                                                

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :          Sh.R.K.Chand, Advocate.

For OP1                         :          Sh.Nitin Kapila, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Complaint against OP2 already dismissed for

                                                 want of proper address.

For OP3                         :         Ex-parte.

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) filed by complainant Sh.Abhinav Sharma against Ops by claiming that he purchased one Karbon Mobile, Model A15 from OP1 vide bill dated 16.2.2013 for consideration of Rs.5495/-. The said mobile phone was manufactured by OP3. One year warranty on the said mobile phone was given by OP1. That mobile phone is not working properly because of manufacturing defect therein. Complainant contacted OP1 for intimating him about the fault. However, OP1 advised the complainant to contact the authorized service centre i.e.Op2, on which, the complainant after approaching OP2 handed over his mobile phone to it. However, OP2 failed to remove the fault in the mobile phone. Despite numerous visits by the complainant to service centre of OP2 for fetching the duly repaired mobile phone, it was found that OP2 unable to remove the fault. On 20.1.2014, the complainant visited Op2 and gave his mobile phone for removing the fault. OP2 issued receipt No.A-2754 dated 20.1.2014. Thereafter, despite numerous visits, OP2 has not returned the mobile phone to the complainant. OP2 informed the complainant as if the said mobile phone was sent for repair at Delhi Workshop. Thereafter, despite repeated requests, mobile phone has not been returned till date and as such, by pleading deficiency in service, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental torture, agony and pain as well as litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- claimed. Prayer also made for directing OPs to return the handset by replacing the same with new one with fresh warranty or in the alternative to refund the amount of the handset along with interest. Despite sending legal notice dated 26.9.2014 for return the mobile phone in a good condition, the same has not been returned.

2.                In written statement filed by Op1, it is pleaded interalia as if the present complaint is not maintainable because there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP1; complainant has no cause of action against OP1 and OP2 and OP3 are the service provider and manufacturer. OP1 was neither to provide services and nor ever dealt with providing of such services. OP1 deals in selling mobile phones at its business place and as such, the complaint against OP1 is not maintainable. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the mobile phone in question as alleged, but each and every other averment of the complaint denied by claiming that mobile phone was sold in sound condition and there was no manufacturing defect in it at the time of sale. It is claimed that defect, if any, occurred in the mobile phone, the same was result of mis-handling by the complainant. Complainant admittedly complained of problem in the mobile phone to OP1 and thereafter, he was advised to contact OP2 and OP3 and as such, there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP1. OP1 not aware of the factum of handing over the mobile phone by the complainant to OP2 for removing the fault. The complaint alleged to be filed on false and frivolous allegations.

3.                Op3 is ex-parte in this case, whereas, complaint against OP2 has already been dismissed for want of furnishing proper address.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C14 and thereafter, his counsel closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for Op1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Gagandeep Singh, Manager of OP1 along with document Ex.R1 and then closed evidence.

6.                Written arguments have not been submitted by any of the parties, but only oral arguments were addressed and heard. Records gone through carefully.

7.                Undisputedly, mobile phone in question was purchased by the complainant from OP1 as revealed by bill Ex.C5=Ex.R1. There is no condition endorsed on the bill Ex.C5=Ex.R1 that warranty to be provided by the manufacturer and if that be the position, then seller cannot shirk from responsibility of providing due services. Had OP1 contemplated not to provide warranty, then endorsement in that respect would have been incorporated on bill Ex.C5=Ex.R1 itself.

8.                Receipt Ex.C6 has been produced to show that mobile phone in question was deposited with OP2 by the complainant for repair on 20.1.2014 because of fault of “No power on and hang problem”. So, statement of complainant through affidavit Ex.CA in that respect is believable that in view of the fault in the purchased mobile phone, the same was deposited with Op2 by him. As OP1 has expressed ignorance qua handing over the mobile phone to OP2, but it is not denied by OP1 that OP2 is the service provider and as such, version of the complainant is believable that in fact OP2 is the service provider and OP3 is the manufacturer. However, complaint against OP2 has already been dismissed for want of proper address as per order dated 22.04.2015 passed by this Forum and as such, no relief against OP2 can be granted through this order.

9.                As Op1 has expressed ignorance qua handing over the mobile phone for repair to OP2 by the complainant, but complainant able to prove the fact qua handing over the mobile phone to OP2 through receipt Ex.C6 and return there had not taken place, due to which, the complainant had to issue legal notice Ex.C1 through postal receipts Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and even he addressed email correspondence    as revealed by Ex.C7 to Ex.C14 and as such, it is obvious that complainant has not got back the mobile phone from OP2 after due repair thereof. As despite legal notice Ex.C1 served on OPs, mobile phone has not been returned back and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The mobile phone was presented for repair within the warranty period of one year and return thereof has not taken place and as such, complainant entitled to return of the duly repaired mobile set(deposited with OP2) from OP1 and OP3 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which, their liability to refund the price amount of Rs.5495/- will be joint and several.

10.              Therefore, as a sequel to the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that Op1 and OP3 will hand over duly repaired mobile set (deposited with OP2) to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which, their liability to refund the price amount of Rs.5495/- will be joint and several. Compensation of Rs.2000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1000/- allowed in favour of the complainant and against OP1 and OP3. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

11.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Sat Paul Garg)                         (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                   President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:27.01.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.