| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.36 of 14-02-2017 Decided on 17-07-2017 Ajay Jindal aged about 39 years S/o Om Parkash Jindal R/o H.No.5325, Street No.5, Malvia Nagar Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.HD Mobile Plaza, Shop No.17/1, SSD Sabha Market, Bathinda through its Proprietor/Partner. 2.Sysnet Global Technologies Pvt. Limited, Khasra No.2393/1, First Floor, 100 Ft. Road, Ghore Wala Chowk, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner. 3.Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., 24 Salarpuria Arena Hosur, Main Road, Adugodi, Bangalore-560030, through its M.D. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.G.K Mittal, Advocate. Opposite party Nos.1 & 2: Ex-parte. For opposite party No.3: Sh.Lovekesh Singh, Advocate. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Ajay Jindal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties H.D Mobile Plaza and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one mobile handset make HP7 (Voice Tab) for Rs.10,000/- vide invoice dated 3.6.2016 from opposite party No.1, manufactured by opposite party No.3. At the time of purchase of the mobile handset, opposite party no.1 assured to provide best services in case of any defect in its functioning. Opposite party No.2 is the local service centre of opposite party No.3. It is alleged that after about six months from the date of purchase, the the mobile handset started creating problems in its functioning as its display started giving the problem of flickering. It was also giving the problem of battery back-up and becoming auto switch off and restart. The complainant visited the office of opposite party No.1, it after checking the mobile handset, asked him to visit the office of opposite party No.2. Accordingly, on 4.1.2017, the complainant approached opposite party No.2, who after checking the mobile handset, retained the same. The complainant was asked to re-collect the mobile handset within 10 days. It is further alleged that the mobile handset is in the possession of opposite party No.2, but it has been putting off the matter on one or other pretext. It is further alleged that there is some manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. The complainant requested opposite party No.2 to replace the mobile handset with new one as it is not curable. He has also got issued the legal notice to opposite parties on 27.1.2017 through his counsel, but to no response. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant has prayed for replacement of the mobile handset with new one of similar price or refund of its price i.e. Rs.10,000/-. He has also claimed Rs.25,000/- for mental tension, agony etc. and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 and 2. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them. Opposite party No.3 appeared through its counsel, but it failed to file written version within the stipulated period. As such, the matter was posted for evidence of the complainant. Parties were asked to produce evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of legal notice, (Ex.C1); postal receipts, (Ex.C2 to Ex.C4); invoice, (Ex.C5); service call report, (Ex.C6); undelivered register cover, (Ex.C7); his affidavit, (Ex.C8) and closed the evidence. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, opposite party No.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Nirmala Veera Rahava dated 25.5.2017 in form of written version to complaint, (Ex.OP3/1) and closed the evidence. In the affidavit, Nirmala Veera Rahava has deposed that opposite party No.2 is their service care centre. Although, in the affidavit, she has deposed the detail objections regarding maintainability of complaint and other, but the material version relevant for disposal of case is that the voice tab purchased by the complainant is well established product. He has purchased the tab after being satisfied with its condition and performance. The product is provided with warranty for the period of one year i.e. from 3.6.2016 to 2.6.2017. It is further deposed that on verification of the data base maintained by opposite party No.3 based on serial number of the voice tab for the calls/complaints lodged to the customer care centre, it is found that the complainant has not logged any complaint/call to opposite party No.3 or its customer care centre. He approached opposite party No.1, who is not the authorized dealer. Opposite party No.1 in turn has contacted opposite party No.2 i.e. authorized service centre of opposite party No.3, reporting display flicker and battery back-up issue. On enquiring from opposite party No.2, it is learnt that on receipt of the complaint, the same is attended promptly. The service centre, who has attended the grievances of the complainant, diagnosed the voice tab for issues and resolved the issues by carrying out repair/service as per the terms of the warranty, kept the tab under observation and on confirmation that the voice tab is working fine as per specifications, returned the same to opposite party No.1. As such, the complaint is prima-facie unsustainable. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. The complainant has pleaded that he has purchased the voice tab from opposite party No.1, manufactured by opposite party No.3. This fact is not disputed. Moreover the complainant has also produced invoice, (Ex.C5). He has also pleaded that on 4.1.2016, he approached opposite party No.2 and reported the complaint about the mobile handset/tab. Opposite party No.2 retained the mobile handset/tab. The service call report, (Ex.C6) is brought on record to corroborate this fact. Opposite party No.2 has not come forward and opposite party No.3 has admitted that opposite party No.2 is its authorized service centre. Therefore, opposite party No.2 is to be accepted as agent of opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.3 is also liable for acts of its agent. The version of the complainant is that the mobile handset/tab is not returned back to him after repair. Opposite party No.3 has deposed in the affidavit that the tab was received by opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1 and after doing the needful, it has been returned to opposite party No.1. No documentary evidence is brought on record to corroborate this fact. The service call report, (Ex.C6) proves that opposite party No.2 has received the mobile handset/tab from the complainant and not from opposite party No.1 as projected by opposite party No.3. In these circumstances, it is to be accepted that the complainant handed over the mobile handset/tab to opposite party No.2 and same was not returned back to him after repair. The complainant has prayed for replacement of the mobile handset/tab with new one or refund of its price, but there is no evidence to prove any manufacturing defect. The mobile handset/tab was purchased on 3.6.2016 and handed over to the service centre after about 6 months from the date of its purchase. It can be safely assumed that the complainant has used the mobile handset/tab for about 6 months without any problem. In case, there was any manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant, the mobile handset/tab was not working for 6 months without problem. Therefore, he is not held entitled to replacement of the mobile handset/tab with new one or refund of its price. He is held entitled to repair of the mobile handset/tab as per warranty terms and conditions. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have delayed in solving the problem. It amounts to deficiency in service on their part. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and dismissed qua opposite party No.1. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are directed to handover the mobile handset/tab in question to the complainant after its repair as per terms and conditions of warranty. It is further made clear that original warranty/guarantee shall stand extended for the remaining period from the date of delivery of mobile handset to the complainant, i.e after excluding period from 4.1.2017 till date of delivery. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 17-07-2017 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
