Surinder Kumar complainant has filed the present complaint against the titled opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short, the C.P.Act.) in which he has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to replace the defective mobile handset with a new mobile handset or to refund the full price of the Mobile Handset alongwith interest. The opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment, torture and emotional distress suffered by him as he is doing work of property dealer and he has suffered a great financial loss.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a Mobile handset make Micromax A 106 bearing No.911345007543132, 91134500-8043637 from the opposite party no.1 who is an authorized retailer of the opposite party no.2 on 3.9.2014 for Rs.7000/-. The mobile is manufactured by the opposite party no.2 who is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling consumer goods like Mobile Handsets, tabs etc. to the public apart from other activities. The opposite party no.3 is authorized service centre of the opposite party no.2. Soon the Mobile handset brought in use it started giving problems like power does not switch on, applications loss of use data, applications error message, charging/battery, not charging etc. He approached the opposite party no.1 and complained the defects in the Mobile handset in question, but the opposite party no.1 directed him to approach opposite party no.3, then he approached the opposite party no.3 who repaired the mobile handset twice, without registering his complaint but there was no improvement in the same and the mobile handset remained defective. He handed over his mobile phone to the opposite party no.3 on 17.2.2015 and he told him to collect the mobile phone after 2 days. Thereafter, he approached the opposite party no.3 on number of times and requested to return his Mobile Phone, but they putting off the matter pending with one or the other excuse and told him that there was some manufacturing defect in the mobile phone and the same has been sent to opposite party no.2. He had been approaching the opposite party no.3 time and again and requesting them to return the mobile phone, but till today neither the Mobile Handset has been returned to him nor any reasonable and plausible reasons has been explained for non returning the same to him. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the present complaint was preferred with the prayed relief as herein above.
3. Upon notice the opposite party no.1 appeared and filed the written reply through its counsel by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable and the opposite party has been illegally made party to the present complaint, as there is no allegation regarding any negligence or deficiency on their part in the whole complaint. On merits, it was submitted that when the complainant had purchased the mobile handset in question from the opposite party he was apprised by the same that if there is any problem or defect in the mobile handset he will have to approach the office of opposite party no.3 for the required repair etc. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied. Lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
4. Upon notice the opposite party no.2 appeared and filed the written reply through its counsel submitting therein that the complainant never came to collect the mobile and not harassed by the opposite party no.3 in any manner as he is a mere service provider of the company and complainant never approached opposite party no.3 after 17th February 2015 to collect the abovesaid mobile and opposite party no.3 never harassed the complainant. It has been further submitted that as opposite party no.3 is always willing to return the mobile to complainant, but complainant never approached the opposite party no.3 after 17.2.2015 and opposite party no.3 never harassed the complainant and is not liable for any penalty. They lastly prayed that complaint is without any merits and same may please be dismissed with costs, in the interest of justice.
5. Notice issued to the opposite party no.2 has not been received back. None was present on its behalf, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 8.5.2015.
6. Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 & ExC3 and closed the evidence.
7. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1/1 and closed the evidence.
8. Sh.Deepak Ghai Prop. M/s. Ghai Communication G.K.Tele Services tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP3/2 and closed the evidence.
9. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.
10. The complainant has made a statement that during the pendency of this complaint opposite party no.3 has replaced the mobile phone with new one and complainant has received it. Now the remaining dispute is for compensation only.
11. We have anxiously considered the contention of the complainant in the light of evidence on record and have found that the stand of the complainant is supported from the evidence led by him in the form of affidavit Ex.C-1 wherein it is asserted that he purchased a Mobile handset vide bill Ex.C-2. It has further asserted that soon after its purchase the handset started giving problems like power does not switch on,loss of data, error message, battery charging problem etc.
12. From the evidential part, it is proved that the complainant time and again approached OP’s for removal of his grievance but was unnecessarily harassed by OP’s which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP’s. Now during the pendency of this complaint the OP no.3 has replaced the Mobile handset with new one and as such, the complainant is found entitled to the appropriate compensation. The OP no.2 did not bother to appear in the Forum and failed to satisfy the complainant and also did not care to contest the claim of the complainant and rebut the evidence led by him as aforesaid and as such it can be concluded without any hesitation that either they admit the claim of the complainant or they have nothing to say in the matter. In this way,the evidence led by the complainant goes unrebutted and unassailed qua OP no.2 and as such OP no. 2 is found deficient in providing the services to the complainant. Hence we are of this view that present complaint can be best disposed of by giving directions for payment of compensation to the complainant. We order and direct the OP no.2 to pay compensation for and on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him to the tune of Rs.3000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of orders, failing which they will pay the aforesaid amount alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from the expiry of 30 days.
13. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties, free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
September 08, 2015. Member.
*MK*
