STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Mukhbir Singh Punia, Advocate, resident of H.No.158, Old Ropar Road, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

1.    Harbans Singh and sons, SCO No.1004, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

2.    GSM Masters, quiet office No.4, Sector 35A, Chandigarh.

3.    M/s  Meridian Mobile Pvt. Ltd., L-ZA, Houz Khas, Enclave,       New Delhi-110016.

              ....Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

              MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Appellant in person.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.               This appeal, for enhancement of compensation, has been filed by the appellant (complainant), against the order dated 17.02.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants), as under:-

“As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and OPs are directed jointly and severally to refund Rs.4700/- being the cost of the mobile set to the complainant. OPs are also directed to pay Rs.2500/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.2,000/- as litigation costs. 

This order be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs  shall be liable to refund the awarded amount along with penal interest @ 12% p.a. from date of filing of the complaint till its realization besides the litigation costs of Rs.2000/-“.

2.               The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a mobile set, make Fly E111, from Opposite Party No.1 for a sum of Rs.4,700/-, on 21.12.2009 vide retail invoice Annexure C-1. After a few days of the purchase of the said mobile set, it started giving trouble. Thus, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1, for repair of the mobile set, in question, as it was under warranty, who suggested him to approach Opposite Party No.2, authorized service point of Fly mobiles. The complainant, then approached Opposite Party No.2, which prepared the job sheet dated 17.3.2010 – Annexure C-2. The complainant was asked to get the mobile set, after necessary repairs,  on the next day. It was stated that contrary to the promise, made by the representative of Opposite Party No.2, the latter failed to handover the mobile set, after its repairs on the promised date. Ultimately, the complainant got the mobile set on 19.4.2010. It was further stated that, thereafter, within a few days, the said mobile set faced the problem of keypad and blue-tooth, and its keys were also not functioning. The complainant again approached Opposite Party No.2, with the request to remove the said defects, on 29.7.2010. Copy of the job card is Annexure C-3. The complainant received back the mobile set on 4.8.2010, after repairs.  It was further stated that the mobile set again started giving problem, as its top four keys and blue-tooth were not working. He again approached Opposite Party No.2, with the request to rectify the said defects, and, in turn, it prepared the job card– Annexure C-4 dated 13.10.2010. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2, assured the complainant that the defects would be removed soon, and he could collect the defect free mobile set by 18.10.2010. He then approached Opposite Party No.2 on 18.10.2010,  but he found that the defects in the mobile set had not been rectified. The complainant was told by the representative of Opposite Party No.2, that the mobile set had to be sent to its Head Service Centre at Delhi. Opposite Party No.2, kept the mobile set with it, with the promise to deliver it shortly. It was further stated that the complainant, time and again, visited Opposite Party No.2, with the request to return the mobile set, but all in vain. It was further stated that the complainant, wrote letter dated 23.12.2010 – Annexure C-5 to Opposite Party No.2, through UPC – Annexure C-6, with the request to return the mobile set, but no response was received. It was further stated that the complainant, being an Advocate, due to non-availability of the mobile set, could not contact his near and dears. Since,  the mobile set was not returned to the complainant, by Opposite Party No.2, he had to purchase a new mobile set in May, 2011 vide invoice – Annexure C-7, for a sum of Rs.2,400/-. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.               Opposite Party No.2, put in appearance, on 04.01.2012 and 30.01.2012, but, thereafter, none appeared on its behalf, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte on 03.02.2012.

4.               Opposite Parties No.1 & 3, did not appear despite due service, and, as such, they were proceeded against exparte.

5.               The complainant led evidence, in support of his case.

6.               After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

7.               Feeling aggrieved, against the inadequacy of compensation, awarded by the District Forum, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.               We have heard the appellant in person, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.               The appellant, submitted that he being an Advocate, in the absence of the mobile set, which was given to Opposite Party No.2, for repairs, and which was never returned to him, by it (Opposite Party No.2), had to suffer a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, for the reason that he could not contact his near and dears, in the meanwhile. He further submitted that if the Opposite Parties, behaved with him, knowing fully well, that he is a practicing Advocate, in the manner,  referred to above, it could be well imagined, as to how, they were behaving with other citizens of the Country, coming into contact with them. He further submitted that, on account of tremendous  mental agony and physical harassment, caused to him, he was required to be awarded handsome compensation, so as to teach a lesson to the Opposite Parties that they should deal with the customers, in a proper manner.  He further submitted that the compensation awarded, to him, being meagre, be enhanced, by modifying the order of the District Forum.

10.            After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the appellant, in person, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The Opposite Parties (now respondents), were exparte, in the District Forum. No doubt, the mobile set in the sum of Rs.4700/-, was purchased vide Annexure C-1, by the complainant, from Opposite Party No.1. The service Centre of the said mobile Company was Opposite Party No.2. It was proved from the evidence, on record, that the mobile set started giving trouble,  right from the very beginning, and, as such, it was required to be taken to Opposite Party No.2, again and again, for rectification of defects. When, for the last time, the mobile set was given to Opposite Party No.2, for rectification of defects, it did not return the same. The District Forum was right, in holding that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service. The District Forum, thus, was right in ordering the refund of Rs.4,700/-, i.e. the price of the mobile set, as reflected in the retail invoice - Annexure C-1, to the complainant.

11.            Not only this, keeping in view the mental agony and physical harassment, suffered by the complainant, on account of non-return of the mobile set to him, by the Opposite Parties, the District Forum, granted compensation, in the sum of Rs.2500/-, to him. It is settled principle of law, that the compensation should be reasonable, fair and adequate. In the instant case, in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, compensation to the tune of Rs.2500/-, granted to the complainant, by the District Forum, could be said to be reasonable, fair and adequate. It could, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be insufficient, unfair, unreasonable or inadequate, keeping in view the price of the mobile set, in question. Not only this, the District Forum, granted Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation. The Consumer Foras, are not meant to enrich the consumer(s), at the instance of the Opposite Parties. The mere fact, that the complainant is an Advocate, does not mean, that he could be granted exorbitant compensation.  No ground, whatsoever, therefore, is made out, for the enhancement of compensation, awarded by the District Forum. The submission of the appellant, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

12.            No other point, was urged, by the appellant, in person.

13.            The order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

14.         For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

15.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

04.04.2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg