BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA
Consumer Complaint No. 228 of 2019
Date of Institution : 03.05.2019
Date of Decision : 30.09.2019
Baljeet Singh son of Gurdev Singh, resident of Ajay Vihar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa. Mobile No.94160-85490.
……Complainant.
Versus
- Garg Gift Collection, Barnala Road, Sirsa (Haryana) through its Proprietor/ Partner.
- Sachdeva Sales Corporation, MI Mobile Service Centre, Behind LIC Building, Old Civil Hospital Complex, Sirsa, through its Manager/ Incharge. Mobile No.93545-30303.
- Rising Star Mobile India Private Limited, 380, Belerica Road, Sri City, Chittoor, District Andhra Pradesh- 517 541 through its Managing Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…… PRESIDENT
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. I.P.S. Fazil, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
Opposite parties no.1 and 3 exparte.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant purchased one Mobile MI-A2 Android, 4GB/64GB from opposite party no.1 for Rs.12,500/- vide invoice No.151 dated 25.4.2019 which is manufactured by op no.3 and op no.2 is care centre of op no.3. The op no.1 gave guarantee of said mobile for a period of one year. On the very next day i.e. on 26.4.2019, the complainant saw that there are blank lines on the right side of display of the mobile. Immediately complainant visited op no.1 and narrated the problem who sent complainant to op no.2. The complainant visited op no.2, who after checking the mobile told that it is defective one and it cannot be repaired due to manufacturing defect and also told that within one week, op no.1 is bound to replace the said mobile from the company. The complainant immediately visited op no.1 and told these facts to him and he called the complainant on next day and assured for its replacement. It is further averred that on 27.4.2019, the complainant visited to op no.1 who refused to replace the mobile malafidely rather misbehaved with him by saying that he is not responsible for its repair or replacement. That the act and conduct of the ops amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Op no.1 did not appear despite service of notice and was proceeded against exparte. Notice was issued to op no.3 through registered cover but op no.3 failed to appear despite notice and after passing period of more than 30 days, as per presumption that notice has been served upon op no.3, it was proceeded against exparte.
3. Opposite party no.2 appeared and filed reply asserting therein that complainant has failed to provide any relevant information like job sheets or any proof of defect regarding the alleged defective handset and alleged visit to op no.2. It is submitted that complainant has not visited the service centre and therefore has not submitted any evidence or relevant document such as a job sheet in connection with alleged visit to op no.2. It is, therefore, clearly established that complainant has provided false information in the complaint. The op no.2 has checked all its internal records and has not been able to ascertain any information regarding the alleged visit to op no.2. If the product had really been submitted for repair to op no.2, a job sheet/ service order sheet would have been created, however, the same has not been produced by complainant. This lack of availability of relevant documents further established the concocted nature of the complaint regarding the alleged visit by complainant to op no.2. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of op no.4 or any of its agent. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit and copy of bill Ex.C1. Op no.2 produced affidavit of Sh. Pankaj Kumar, authorized representative as Ex.R1.
5. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.2 and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated the averments made in the complaint. He has specifically deposed that he has purchased one Mobile MI-A2 Android 4GB/64GB from opposite party no.1 for Rs.12,500/- vide invoice bill No.151 dated 25.4.2019 which is manufactured by op no.3 and op no.2 care centre of op no.3. The op no.1 gave guarantee of said mobile for a period of one year. On the very next day i.e. on 26.4.2019 the complainant saw that there are blank lines on the right side of display of the mobile. He has further deposed that immediately he visited op no.1 and narrated the problem, who sent him to op no.2. The complainant visited to op no.2, who after checking the mobile told that mobile is defective one and it cannot be repaired due to manufacturing defect and also told that within one week, op no.2 is bound to replace the said mobile from the company. The complainant immediately visited op no.1 but he failed to redress his grievance. The complainant has also tendered copy of bill dated 25.4.2019 as Ex.C1. Ops no.1 and 3 have failed to appear before the Forum despite notice and opted to be proceeded against exparte. On the other hand, op no.2 furnished affidavit of Sh. Pankaj Kumar, authorized representative as Ex.R1 in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the reply. Though, he has deposed that complainant has never visited to op no.2 with issue related to the concerned product and he has not produced any evidence of such alleged visit and that if the product had really been submitted for repair to op no.2, a job sheet/ service order sheet would have been created, however, the same has not been produced by complainant. He has further deposed that this lack of availability of relevant documents further establishes the concocted nature of the complaint regarding the alleged visit by complainant to op no.2, therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of op no.2 or any of its agent. But at the same time, it appears from the reply of op no.2 that complainant had approached op no.2 on the advice of op no.1 to get his mobile checked who told the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile and it needs replacement and service centre is not to give any replacement of the mobile set. Ops no.1 and 3 have not put their appearance and were proceeded against exparte. So, evidence of complainant goes as unchallenged and unrebutted against the op no.1 dealer who sold the mobile to the complainant and against op no.3 who is manufacturer of the mobile in question. So, it is proved from the evidence of complainant that complainant had purchased the mobile on 25.4.2019 and on the next day it became out of order and op no.2 refused to repair the same and returned the same with the remarks that it suffers from manufacturing defect and is not repairable.
7. In view of the above, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the mobile of complainant with a new one of same make and model or in the alternate to make refund of Rs.12,500/- i.e. price of the mobile to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @7% per annum on the above said amount from the ops from the date of order till actual compliance/ payment. We further direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member President,
Dated: 30.09.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
