Haryana

Karnal

405/2013

Ram Chander S/o Sharab Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Electromech Engineerr - Opp.Party(s)

Mukesh Gorsi

27 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                               Complaint No.405 of 2013

                                                             Date of instt.: 24.09.2013

                                                               Date of decision:27.10.2016

 

 Ram Chander son of Shri Sharab Singh, resident of house no.95/11, Power House Colony, Kunjpura Road, Karnal.

 

                                                                               ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. Electromech Engineer, 375 (Basement) Mugal Canal Market, Karnal, through its owner.

2. New Mass Communication, authorized service centre of Haier Appliance (India) Pvt. Ltd. SCO no.152, Old Mughal Canal, Karnal.

3. Haier Appliance (India) Pvt. Mobile Phone Division B-1/4-14 Mohan Coop. Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-44, through its Managing Director/C.E.O.

 

                                                                              ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                     Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                      Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-       Sh. Mukesh Garshi Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh. P.K. Mandi Advocate for the Opposite party no.1.

                     Opposite parties no.2 and 3 exparte.

 

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased one Haier Mobile Phone Model CF-220 bearing IMEI no.867280025A53F4 from opposite party no.1 for Rs.2100/-, vide invoice no.112 dated 14.05.2013. The said mobile carried warranty for one year. However, just after four days of purchase, the mobile started creating problem of display while dialing any number. He approached opposite party no.1, who asked him to visit the service centre of opposite party no.2. Accordingly, he approached opposite party no.2, but the opposite party no.2 instead of repairing the mobile postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, he got served legal notice dated 4.9.2013 upon the opposite parties, but the same also did not yield any result. There is manufacturing defect in the mobile. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service, due to which he suffered mental agony and harassment apart financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party no.1; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint and that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant approached the shop of opposite party no.1 with some complaint and he was advised to contact opposite party no.2 i.e. the authorized service centre of the company. The opposite party no.2 duly offered to replace the mobile with a new one, but the complainant refused to accept the same and filed the complaint in order to harass and humiliate the opposite parties. There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

3.                None put into appearance on behalf of opposite parties no.2 and 3, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated against them.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex. PW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C8 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party no.1, affidavit of Baljeet Singh Ex.OP1/A has only been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                It is worth pointing out at the very outset that on 28.3.2014 Suresh Kumar Area Service Manager of opposite party no.3 put into appearance and made statement that he was ready and willing to give new sealed mobile set no.NCG 220 of Haier Company to the complainant. He had brought that mobile set on that day and rang up the complainant, but the complainant refused to accept the same. Opposite party no.1 also in the written statement submitted that the opposite party no.2 duly offered to the complainant to replace the mobile with a new one, but the complainant refused to accept the same. As per the case of the complainant there was problem of display while dialing any number. When the opposite party no.3 was ready to replace the same with new one, the complainant had no cause of action. Even if, for the sake of arguments it is accepted that the opposite party no.3 offered to replace the mobile of the complainant after filing of the complaint, then also the cause of action stood subsided and there was no purpose of proceedings with this complaint.

8.                In view of such facts and circumstances, the complaint is accepted to the extent that the opposite party no.3 is directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same value. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:27.10.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member