BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 717 of 2015

Date of Institution: 17.12.2015

Date of Decision: 17.06.2016  

Shri Raj Kumar son of Shri Sunder Lal, resident of H.No.904, New Rajesh Nagar, Gali No.2, Tung Pai, Batala Road, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1.       Gionee, Syntech Technology Private Limited, through its Manager/ General Manager/ Person Incharge, E-9, Block B-1, Ground Floor, Mohan Co-operative, Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.

2.       M/s.Cell Point, through its Proprietor/ Partner, Shop No. 201, 202, Sunrise Plaza, Cooper Road, Near Bakerwell Bakery, Amritsar.

3.       L3-UT Electronics, through its proprietor/ partner/ authorized officer, Sant Vivekanand Road, Village Pahat Zirakpur, Punjab. 

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Vishal Gupta, Advocate

              For Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Sh.Sanjeet Singh, Advocate

              For Opposite Party No.3: Exparte.

Coram

Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1.       Sh.Raj Kumar has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  Opposite Party No.1 is the registered Head Office and manufacturer of mobiles with the brand name Gionee, while Opposite Party No.2 is authorized service centre of Gionee mobiles at Amritsar and Opposite Party No.3 is Regional Head Office/ Regional Head Service Centre of Gionee mobile phones in Punjab. The complainant is owner and holder in due course of Gionee Mobile Set, model Dream D1, having IMEI Nos. 860523020042933 & 860523025042938 and he had been using the said Mobile Set for the last 1½ years. In the month of July 2015, the LCD Display of the Mobile Set in dispute got damaged and in this regard, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 on 21.7.2015 and handed over the Mobile Set in dispute to their official for its repair. Opposite Party No.2 told the complainant  that the LCD Display of the Mobile Set in dispute has been completely damaged  and the same is required to be changed/ replaced with new one. By that time, the Mobile Set in dispute was not under warranty and as such, the official of Opposite Party No.2 told the complainant that Rs.4400/- shall be charged for replacing the LCD Display of the Mobile Set in dispute, which was agreed to by the complainant and Opposite Party No.2 replaced the LCD Display of the Mobile Set in dispute with new one on 21.7.2015. Copy of bill/ estimate  bearing No. 1492 dated 21.7.2015 issued by Opposite Party No.2 is attached herewith. At the time of replacing the LCD Display of the Mobile Set in dispute, Opposite Party No.2 had verbally told the complainant that the genuine spare parts of Gionee Mobile Set in dispute are having warranty of six months and it is also a matter of fact that all the genuine spare parts of every mobile company are having warranty of six months, but the official of Opposite Party intentionally and malafidely mentioned one month warranty of the aforesaid LCD Display of the Mobile Set in dispute on the aforesaid bill/ estimate. After two or three days of replacement of LCD Display of the Mobile Set in dispute, the complainant noticed that there are patches/ colour difference/ shadows at upper and lower portions of LCD Display of the Mobile Set in dispute, which were visible on playing any kind of video or images in Mobile Set in dispute. The complainant immediately approached Opposite Party No.2 and requested to check the LCD Display of the Mobile Set in dispute. The official of Opposite Party No.2 also noticed said fault in the replaced LCD Display of the Mobile Set in dispute and told the complainant that it shall be rectified automatically with the passage of time. The complainant bonafidely believed the assurance of Opposite Party No.2, but the said LCD Display of the Mobile Set in dispute could not be rectified and in this regard the complainant again approached Opposite Party No.2 for 3-4 times and requested them to replace the said faulty LCD Display of the Mobile Set in dispute, which they had installed in the Mobile Set of the complainant, but Opposite Party No.2 did not adhere to the genuine requests of the complainant, through they kept the said Mobile Set twice with them for its repair, but all the times, they handed over the Mobile Set in dispute to the complainant without changing the LCD Display of the Mobile Set in dispute or its repair and finally the complainant again approached Opposite Party No.2 on 11.9.2015 and requested to replace the said faulty LCD Display of the Mobile Set in dispute installed by them, but Opposite Party No.2 told him that the Mobile Set in dispute is required to be sent  to their Head Office at Delhi and they shall rectify the said fault in the Mobile Set in dispute. As such, the complainant again handed over the said Mobile Set in dispute to Opposite Party No.2 on 11.9.2015 against Job Sheet No. 4607.  This time it was told to the complainant that Mobile Set in dispute will be returned to him after 10-12 days.  Opposite Party No.2 sent the Mobile Set in dispute to their Head Office for its repair and it was again handed over to complainant on 8.10.2015 i.e. after 28 days and by that time, the complainant was forced to visit the office of Opposite Party No.2 approximately 10 times to collect his Mobile Set. It is important to mention over here that in this regard, a complaint No. 15900006227 was also sent to the complainant on his cell No. 9914307885. It was a matter of surprise for the complainant that said fault in the LCD Display of the Mobile Set in dispute was still existing in the Mobile Set of the complainant and the same has not been rectified by the Opposite Parties  so far. Legal Notice  was also served  upon the Opposite Parties  by the complainant in this regard which was  duly received by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Again on 20.11.2015 another job sheet was issued  by Opposite Party No.3, but Mobile Set in dispute has not been rectified. No money has been charged from the complainant for the repair process as the LCD Display of the Mobile Set in dispute was still under warranty and the said defect was found at initial stage of its installation. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint.

a)       Opposite Parties  may kindly be directed to hand over the Mobile Set in dispute to the complainant after  replacing or repair the aforesaid faulty LCD Display.

b)      Opposite Parties  may kindly be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension, pain, agony, harassment and monetary loss as well as loss of time.

c)       Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.22,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.

d)      Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled under the law and equity may also be awarded to him.              

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2  appeared and filed joint written statement contesting the claim of the complainant. Opposite Party No.3 despite service did not opt to appear or contest the claim of the complainant. As such, Opposite Party No.3 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte. 

3.       In their joint written reply, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 took up a  preliminary objection therein inter alia  that complainant could not produce any documentary evidence or record with the complaint and the Mobile Set in dispute was not having any manufacturing defects, so the Mobile Set in dispute can not be ordered to be replaced and no case is made out for refund of its price even. On merits, the purchase of the Mobile Set in dispute by the complainant from Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 is a matter of record. It is admitted that the complainant purchased the Mobile Set in dispute about 1½ years back. The complainant himself has admitted  that after enjoying and using the Mobile Set in dispute for 1½ years the said Mobile Set in dispute started creating LCD problem which was completely damaged and due to the said problem. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.2/ service centre on 21.7.2015 vide Job Sheet No. 1492. It is pertinent to mention over here that the answering Opposite Parties  intimated  the complainant with regard to the cost of LCD and also its warranty period of one month in case of normal cases and in case of wear and tear, there was no warranty period. The complainant was ready to pay the cost of the LCD and agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the warranty period of the said part question. It is important to mention here that the complainant has put forth a cooked story on the said grounds or facts which were unsufficient causes or merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose to claim his illegal demand from the answering Opposite Parties. The complainant rather approached  Opposite Party No.2 service centre after more than  2½ months i.e. on 11.9.2015 vide job sheet No. 4607 with regard to LCD problem and narration with regard to O/W was mentioned in the job sheet and kept the Mobile Set in dispute.The complainant was asked to come on the next date for verifying the actual problem and also pay the cost of the part accordingly. It is admitted that the complainant served legal notice on the answering Opposite Parties just to create evidence. It is specifically mentioned that the complainant approached the service centre and narrated the same story. At that time, the  answering Opposite Parties issued the job sheet with remarks “out of warranty” and checked the Mobile Set in dispute. It was found that there was no such problem as the complainant has mentioned and after rectifying the problem, the Mobile Set was handed over to the complainant. After that, the complainant never approached Opposite Party No.2 for the said  problem.  Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint were also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

4.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant made into the witness box as his own witness and filed duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced  the bill cum estimate dated 21.7.2015 Ex.C2, copy of service job sheet dated 11.9.2015 Ex.C3, copy of legal notice dated 22.10.2015 Ex.C4, original postal receipt Ex.C5, copy of service job sheet dated 30.10.2015 Ex.C6, copy of service job sheet Ex.C7, copy of reply to legal notice Ex.C8, letter dated 23.1.2016 Ex.C9    and closed his evidence.

5.       To rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Sahil Arora Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant as well as Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and besides going through the written synopsis of  arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant and Opposite Party No.2. We have also carefully gone through the evidence on record.

7.       From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it transpires that the complainant purchased Mobile Set in dispute Gionee Mobile Set, model Dream D1 and the complainant is owner and holder of the Mobile Set in dispute which he has been using for the last 1½ years. On 21.7.2015 the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 and handed over the Mobile Set in dispute to their official for its repair. Since the Mobile Set in dispute was beyond warranty period, as such, the official of Opposite Party No.2 told the complainant  that a sum of Rs.4400/- shall be charged for replacing the LCD Display of the Mobile Set in dispute to which the complainant readily agreed and Opposite Party No.2 replaced the LCD Display of the Mobile Set in dispute with new one on 21.7.2015 itself. Copy of job sheet dated 21.7.2015 accounts for Ex.C2. At the time of replacing the LCD Display of the Mobile Set in dispute, the warranty of one month was given which is admitted case of the parties. It is the case of the complainant that Mobile Set in dispute again suffered from same defect and he visited Opposite Party No.2 on 11.9.2015 with a request to replace the LCD Display of the Mobile Set in dispute or repair the same to make the Mobile Set in dispute work worthy. But however,  the defect in the Mobile Set in dispute could not be rectified by Opposite Party No.2. On all the three occasions, when the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2, the Mobile Set in dispute was beyond the warranty period. The complainant was attended to by the officials of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 & genuine efforts were made to rectify the defect. It is admitted fact that no amount was charged from the complainant for the repairs made on 11.9.2015 as well as 20.11.2015.   The documents placed on record reveal that  the Mobile Set in dispute was beyond the warranty period and its repair was to be carried out on payment basis only. It is none of the case of the complainant that he was actually ready and willing to make the payment of the costs of spares or charges of repair to be carried out by the Opposite Parties. In such a situation, relief sought by the complainant  vide instant complaint was not available to the complainant. This complaint is nothing, but an abuse of the process of this Forum. As such, the instant  complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 17-06-2016.                                                      (S.S.Panesar)                                                                                                                                                                                                         President

                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member

hrg