Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/16/32

Jagjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gorla Communication & Others - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Mohit Kumar Dhupar, Adv.

16 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                                 Consumer Complaint No: 32 of 18.07.2016

                                                 Date of decision            : 16.12.2016

 

Jagjit Singh, aged about 37 years, son of Sh. Jagir Singh, resident of House No.581, Street No.4, Malohtra Colony, Ropar, Tehsil & District Ropar.  

                                                                                      ……Complainant

1.       Gorla Communication, Shop No.2, Opposite Gurdawara Singh Sabha, Near Naina Devi Mandir, Ropar, Tehsil & District Ropar, through its Proprietor.  

2.       M/s Telezone Authorized Service Centre of Micromax, SCF No.20, Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar, Tehsil & District Ropar, through its Proprietor.

3.       Micromax Informatics Ltd, Corporate Office, 90-B, Sector 18, Gurgaon (HR) 122015 through its Managing Director.  

                                                                                      …..Opposite Parties

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

          QUORUM

                                                SMT. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                                                SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

          ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Mohit Kumar Dhupar, Advocate, counsel for complainant

Sh. Devinder Gorla, Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party No.1

Sh. Suresh Kumar, Manager of M/s Telezone Authorized Service Centre of Micromax of  Opposite Party No.2

                                                Opposite Party No.3 ex-parte

 

ORDER

                                                SMT. NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT  

Sh. Jagjit Singh, has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.).

 

2.                          In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a micromax mobile set model D-321, for a sum of Rs.54,000/- from O.P. No.1, vide bill dated 2011.2015, having warranty of one year. After few days of its purchase, the mobile set stopped working and hanged automatically. The mobile set was within the guarantee period and as per condition and requirement of the bill, if any one faces any trouble in the mobile set, he can directly approach the service centre of the mobile company. He went to the office of O.P. No.2, in the month of December 2015, for repair of his mobile set. The official of the O.P. No.2 returned the same, after its repair after one month. Even after repair, the said mobile was not working property, he again handed over his mobile set to the O.P. No.2, its officials told him that there is Bolt Hang, problem in the said mobile set and he kept the mobile set with him and issued a job sheet. It is further stated that about 15 days, thereafter, the said mobile set again started giving problem and he again visited the office of O.P. No.2 for rectification of the defects. Whenever, he visited the office of O.P. No.2 for the repair of his mobile set, its officials always would keep his mobile for its repair and would issued the job sheet and the same were taken back by the O.P. No.2, while handing over the mobile set after its repair. In the month of June 2016, his mobile set totally hanged and he visited the O.P. No.1, its officials issued the job sheet and he was told to come on next day. He collected his mobile set on the next day, but it again started giving problem and shut down automatically. He handed over his mobile set to the O.P. No.2 for its repair, the officials of the O.P. No.2, told him to collect a brand new hand set on the next date as there is manufacturing defect in his mobile set. But when on 10.7.2016, he approached the O.P. No.2 to collect the new mobile set its official refused to give the new mobile set even he had not handed over his mobile set after its repair. It is, prayed that complaint may kindly be accepted and directions may kindly be given to the O.Ps. to replace the defective mobile set with the new one or to refund back the price of the mobile set in question along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization along with damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- as well as cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant in the interest of justice.

3.                          On being put to notice, the O.P. No.1 filed written statement taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable against the answering O.P; that the complainant has involved the answering O.P. in this complaint only with the motive to harass and humiliate the O.P. No.1; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands; that the complainant has filed the complaint on wrong facts. At the time of purchase the mobile set, the complainant checked the same in the shop of the O.P. No.1 and after satisfying himself with the functioning of the mobile set, has purchased the same. If any defects occurred in the mobile set after its purchase, then he could have taken the same for its repair to the service centre, i.e. O.P. No.2 and if there is any manufacturing defect then manufacturer is responsible for the same. On merits, it is stated that O.P. No.1 is running the shop to sell the mobile set. It never gave any assurance as alleged by the complainant. The warranty card has been given by the O.Ps. No.2 & 3. The O.P. No.2 is the authorized service centre of the O.P. No.3, as is duly mentioned in the booklet/warranty book issued by the O.P. No.1 to the complainant at the time of selling the mobile set. As such, the O.P. No.2 is responsible for the repair of the defects if any occurred in his mobile set and if it is not repairable then O.P. No.3 is responsible to replace the same with the new one. The complainant has unnecessarily dragged the O.P. No.1 in this complaint. There is no role of the answering O.P. for the repair and replacement of the mobile set then question of prolonging the matter as alleged does not arise at all. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof with costs.

4.                The O.P. No.2 has also filed written version  stating therein that the complainant approached the care centre on 8.6.2016 for rectification of the defects in the mobile i.e. Bolt Hang and same was transmitted to next level on 9.6.2016 as the complainant was adamant to get it repaired from the next level. In December 2015, O.P. No.2 received his hand set and sent for its repair to service centre situated at SBS Nagar. This service centre was working as collection centre at that time. It discharged its responsibility in proper way. It had never promised the complainant to replace his mobile set with the new one, because, it is the sole discretion of the manufacturer. It is further stated that the complainant visited its office on 10.7.2016 for the repair of his mobile set, which was repaired on the next day i.e. 11.7.2016, and he was asked to collect his hand set. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed that complainant be directed to collect his mobile set from it.

5.                          None having put an appearance on behalf of O.P. No.3, it is proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.09.2016.   

 

6.                          On being called upon to do so, the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant, Ex. C1, photocopies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 has suffered a statement, which has been recorded separately to the effect that he does not want to tender any document in evidence and his written reply may be read as part of his evidence and closed the evidence. Sh. Suresh Kumar, Service Manager of M/s Telezone Authorized Service Centre of Micromax of O.P. No.2 tendered his affidavit Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence.      

7.                          We have learned counsel for the complainant, O.P. No.1 and also for O.P. No.2, and have gone through the file carefully.

8.                           From the copy of invoice dated 20.11.2015, Ex.C2, it is evident that complainant purchased a mobile set i.e. Micromax D321, worth Rs.5400/-, from O.P. No.1, manufactured by O.P. No.3.     From the copy of service Job sheet Ex.C3, issued by O.P. No.2, it is evident that there was a bolt hang problem in the mobile set in question. In the said job sheet, it is clearly mentioned that mobile set in question was within warranty. As per the version of the complainant after repeated repairs, the defect in the mobile in question, could not be rectified by the O.P. No.2, and it is still lying with it. The stand of the O.P. No.2 is that it had rectified the defects of the said mobile but complainant did not come forward to collect the same. It is not out of place to mention here that if the O.P. No.2 had repaired the mobile set in question then it should have conveyed the complainant regarding the said fact. However, no document has been placed on record by the O.P. No.2, whether complainant was informed that his mobile set has been repaired and to collect the same. Thus, we hold that this bald assertion of the O.P. No.2, cannot be relied upon. It may be stated in these days, having a mobile set is a basic necessity and due to non repair of the mobile set in question by the O.P. No.2, complainant has been deprived of its use, therefore, the O.P. No.2, is liable to compensate the complainant, as such, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case, where the cost of the said mobile set is refunded to the complainant along with compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him. Since, O.P. No.2 is the authorized service centre of O.P. No.3, therefore, O.P. No.3, being manufacturer is vicariously liable for the act and conduct of its authorized service centre i.e. O.P. No.2. Thus, we do not hesitate to conclude that O.P. No.3 is also liable to compensate the complainant along with O.P. No.2. So far as the liability of the O.P. No.1 is concerned. It may be stated that in the complaint, the complainant has averred that he has purchased the mobile set in question from O.P. No.1. Neither any specific allegation has been leveled against the said O.P. by the complainant nor it has been proved, thus, no liability can be fastened against the O.P. No.1, thus, the complaint filed against it is liable to be dismissed.

9.                          In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint against O.P. No.1. and allow the same against the O.Ps. No.2 & 3. The O.Ps. No.2 & 3 are directed in the following manner:-

1.                To refund a sum of Rs.5400/- i.e. the price of the mobile set in question.

2.                To pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment

3.                To pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation.

                             The O.Ps. No.2 & 3 are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly and severally within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.  

10.                        The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file indexed & consigned to the Record Room. 

 

ANNOUNCED                                                     (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated: 16.12.2016                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                          (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                              MEMBER.