Punjab

Sangrur

CC/50/2015

Dr.Kamaljit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Golden Gift - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

03 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    50

                                                Instituted on:      02.02.2015

                                                Decided on:       03.06.2015

 

 

 

Dr. Kamaljit Singh M.A., PH.D.NET. LLB, Principal Vidhya Sagar College for Girls, Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.             Golden Gift and Antique House, College Road, Malerkotla, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

2.             Micromax Futures Computers, House No.287, 14, Green Avenue Street, Near Bus Stand, Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :               In person.

For OPs                    :               Shri Ashish Grover, Adv.

 

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Dr. Kamaljit Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Micromax mobile set bearing model number 290 from OP number 1 on 21.10.2014 vide bill number 5941 for Rs.11,500/- which was having one year warranty.  It is further averred that after some days of its purchase, the mobile set created problem, as such he approached the OP number 1, who advised the complainant to approach OP number 2, as such the complainant approached OP number 2, who kept the mobile set in question and asked the complainant to come after seven days to collect the mobile set. It is further stated that the OP number 2 also issued the complainant job sheet dated 3.12.2014. When the complainant approached the OP number 2 to collect the mobile set, then the OP number 2 advised the complainant that it will take more time and to come after some time. It is further averred that lastly the OPs refused to do anything in the case of mobile set.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to supply to the complainant a new mobile set or in the alternative to refund an amount of Rs.11,500/- along with interest and further claimed an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of compensation.

 

2.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from OP number 1. It is denied that the complainant ever approached OP number 1.  It is admitted that the complainant approached OP number 2 on 31.12.2014 with the problem of blank display of mobile phone and the OP number 2 advised the complainant that the mobile is non functional due to water damage and if the mobile set gets damaged due to water then the same is not covered under the warranty, despite that the OP number 2 replaced the display of the mobile set and the complainant himself did not come to get the mobile set from OP number 2.  OP number 2 also offered the mobile set in question to the complainant, but he refused to accept the same.  However, any defect in the mobile set is denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill dated 21.10.2014, Ex.C-3 copy of receipt dated 3.12.2014 and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OPs/1 affidavit of Rahul Verma, Ex.OPs/2 copy of certificate of Rahul Verma and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.               Ex.C-2 is a copy of the bill dated 21.10.2014 issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.11,500/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set and availed the services of the OP number 1. But, OP number 1 has denied that the complainant ever approached him for any of the defect in the mobile set in question. Ex.C-3 is the copy of job order sheet dated 03.12.2014, showing the defect in the mobile set ‘display blank’ and the mobile set was under the warranty.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended that since the mobile set in question was damaged due to water then the mobile set is not covered under the warranty conditions.  The learned counsel for the Ops has further contended that the  despite the fact that the displayed had damaged due to water, even then the OPs replaced the display of the mobile set in question free of cost and offered the mobile set to the complainant, but he refused to accept the same.  We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties as well as heard the arguments and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the mobile set in question was purchased on 21.10.2014 and within a period of even less than two months, the mobile set developed the display problem and approached OP number 2, but the OP number 2 failed to return the mobile set to the complainant despite his repeated visits and lastly was compelled to file the present complaint.  It is only during the present proceedings, the Ops repaired the mobile set and offered to the complainant, but the complainant refused to accept the same only on the ground that the same be replaced with a new one to avoid further harassment.

 

 

6.             It is on the file that the mobile set in question was suffering from the ‘display blank’ problem. But, the Ops have averred in the reply that the mobile set was damaged due to water.  But, Ex.C-3 is the copy of job sheet dated 3.12.2014 does not show any thing mentioned regarding the damage of mobile set due to water.  In the circumstances of the case, we find that since the mobile set in question developed defects within a period of two months of its purchase, it requires to be replaced with a new one, more so when the Ops failed to repair the mobile set in question within a reasonable time. Further it is an admitted fact that the defective mobile set is lying with the OP number 2.

 

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 2 to hand over the complainant a new mobile set Micromax having model number A-290, which was sold to the complainant within a period of thirty days, failing which Op number 2 shall be liable to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.11,500/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till its realisation. We further order the Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension and harassment and litigation expenses. 

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                June 3, 2015.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member