Punjab

Moga

CC/15/42

Shivani Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Grover Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Sunil Kumar Jaiswal

03 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                      C.C. No. 42 of 2015

                                                                Instituted On: 29.06.2015

                                                  Decided On: 03.11.2015

 

Shivani Gupta, aged 39 years, wife of Ajay Kumar Gupta, resident of Civil Lines, Ward no.4, House no.449, Civil Lines, Moga.

Complainant 

Versus

 

1. Grover Mobiles, Hitone Wali Gali, Old Court Road, Main Bazar, Moga, through its Proprietor Harish Grover.

2. M/s Dhanjal Communication, Shop number 6, 1^st Floor, Puri Complex, Near Bus Stand, Moga.

3. M/s Micromax Informatics Limited, 21/14A, Phase 11, Narayan Industrial Area, Delhi-110028, through its Managing Director.

 

Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint under section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

 

Coram:      Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

                   Smt.Vinod Bala, Member

                   Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member

Present:      Sh.Sunil Jaiswal, Advocate Counsel for the complainant.

                    Opposite party no.1 to 3 exparte.

 

ORDER

(S.S.Panesar, President)

                  Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against Grover Mobiles, Hitone Wali Gali, Old Court Road, Main Bazar, Moga, through its Proprietor Harish Grover and others (herein-after referred to as opposite parties)- directing them to handover a new mobile phone of the same model or to refund the cost of the mobile phone with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its purchase till its realization and further opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation costs to the complainant.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a new mobile hand set make Micromax A106, IMEI no.911391301877727, for an amount of Rs.7000/- vide bill no.591 dated 20.08.2014, from opposite party no.1. At the time of purchase of the mobile hand set, opposite party no.1 assured the complainant that mobile hand set is perfectly upto the mark and will not create any problem. After about 20 days of its purchase, the mobile started giving problem, as the complainant could not listen the incoming calls. The complainant approached opposite party no.1, who told that they will repair it. On the very next day, they handed over the said mobile hand set to the complainant with the assurance that the said mobile hand set is in order and without any defect. Thereafter, again the mobile hand set started giving problem i.e. Poor outgoing audio quality. The complainant again visited to opposite party no.1, who advised the complainant to go to opposite party no.2, who is the authorized person to check the defect. Complainant approached opposite party no.2, who filled a job card dated 25.04.2015 and assured the complainant that they will remove the defect and charged Rs.250/- from the complainant. When the complainant approached opposite party no.2, they did not handover the mobile hand set on one pretext of the other and ultimately, they issued a new job card dated 18.5.2015, in which, it was mentioned that mobile phone does not switch on power. The opposite party no.2 charged Rs.250/-. After that the opposite parties did not return back the mobile hand set to the complainant on the ground that same cannot be repaired and since then the original mobile hand set is in the possession of the opposite parties. There is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Firstly, the said mobile hand set was under warranty period and opposite parties were required to get it repaired and in case the same is not repairable, then new mobile set was required to be delivered to the complainant. Secondly, no repair charges were required to be paid by the complainant. The services rendered by the opposite parties are deficient and complainant has been harassed unnecessarily. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, Sh.Harish Kumar, Proprietor had appeared on 03.08.2015 on behalf of opposite party no.1. But thereafter, none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1 nor any written reply was filed, as such, opposite party no.1 was ordered to be proceeded exparte. Upon notice, despite due service, none has put appearance on behalf of opposite party nos.1 & 3, as such, opposite party nos.1 & 3 were ordered to be proceeded exparte.

4.                In his evidence, the complainant Shivani Gupta appeared in witness box as his own witness and filed her duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of his allegations made in the complaint. The complainant also produced on record photocopies of the documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5.

5.                We have heard the complainant in person and have carefully gone through record placed on file.

6.                The evidence adduced by the complainant has gone un-rebutted on record. It is proved on record that the complainant purchased mobile hand set in dispute on 20.08.2014 vide bill/cash memo, copy whereof is Ex.C-2 on record, from opposite party no.1 for a total consideration of Rs.7000/-. The mobile hand set was within warranty cover w.e.f 20.08.2014 uptil 19.08.2015, copy of the warranty letter is Ex.C5 on record. It is also proved on record that the mobile hand set in dispute suffered from defect, as the complainant could not listen the incoming calls. The defect came to the knowledge of the complainant after about 20 days of the purchase of the mobile hand set. The complainant approached opposite party no.1, who advised her to approach opposite party no.2 in this connection. The complainant approached opposite party no.2 on 25.4.2015, who issued the job card to the complainant, copy whereof is Ex.C3 on record. Opposite party no.2 assured the complainant to receive back the mobile hand set on 28.04.2015, but however, it did not return the mobile hand set on one pretext or the other and ultimately, they issued another job card to the complainant, copy whereof is Ex.C4 and also charged Rs.250/- from her. Thereafter, the opposite parties did not return back the mobile hand set to the complainant on the ground that the same cannot be repaired and since then the original mobile hand set is in the possession of the opposite parties.

7.                It is the case of the complainant that mobile hand set in dispute could not be repaired, because it suffered from technical defect, therefore, the opposite parties may be directed to supply the new mobile hand set in lieu of the mobile hand set belonging to the complainant or in the alternative opposite parties may be directed to refund the price of the mobile hand set in dispute to the complainant. However, the case of the complainant that the mobile hand set in dispute suffered from some technical or manufacturing defect is not made out from the evidence on record. The complainant has not produced any expert report in that regard nor she has produced any other evidence in support of that plea except for her bald statement which remained uncorroborated on record. So, it becomes evident that mobile hand set in dispute does not suffer from any manufacturing defect, which cannot be cured by means of repairs. However, opposite parties are deficient in providing proper service to the complainant, because they have been retaining the mobile hand set in dispute and have further failed to repair the mobile hand set in dispute since 28.04.2015 despite earnest efforts made by the complainant in that regard.

8.                In our considered opinion the opposite parties i.e. opposite party no.1 being the seller, opposite party no.3 being the manufacturer and opposite party no.2 being the service provider are jointly and severally liable to repair the mobile hand set in dispute, without charging any amount from the complainant. After making the necessary repairs, the opposite parties are directed to handover the mobile hand set to the complainant against proper receipt. The opposite parties are given one month's time for doing the needful to the satisfaction of the complainant, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to get the order enforced, through indulgence of this Forum. The costs of the complaint are assessed at Rs.1000/-(One thousand only). The complaint stands allowed exparte accordingly with costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

                   (Bhupinder Kaur)          (Vinod Bala)        (S.S. Panesar)

                      Member                         Member                   President

 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:03.11.2015.