| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No.328/14 Date of Institution:12/06/2014 Date of Decision:04/02/2015 Ravinder Singh son of Sh.Gulzar Singh, resident of H.No.16, Saheed Nagar, Chhehartta, Punjab. Complainant Versus - Jaina Marketing & Associates, D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Authorized Person.
- CELL HUT through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Authorized Person at “202, 203 Sunrise Plaza, Cooper Road, Amritsar.
Opposite Parties Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date. Present: For the Complainant: In person. For the Opposite Party No.1: Exparte. For the Opposite Party No.2: Sh.Sanjeet Singh, Advocate. Quorum: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Order dictated by: Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President. - Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Ravinder Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased a mobile set Model No.A3+ through STAR CJ TV Channel vide bill No.201306271124 dated 27.6.2013 for Rs.3990/-. Complainant alleges that since the first day of its purchase, the mobile set in question was having manufacturing defect and suffering from problems like hang while operating, switch on-off itself, missing voice to caller etc. The complainant handed over the mobile set in question to Opposite Party No.2 i.e. the authorized service centre of the company on 9.10.2013 and after keeping the mobile set for some time, the Opposite Party No.2 assured the complainant that all the defects in the mobile set in question have been removed. But same problems again occurred in the mobile set. The complainant again visited Opposite Party No.2 on 19.10.2013 and Opposite Party No.2 again kept the mobile set for replacement and told the complainant that they will replace the mobile set within 10 days or will provide refund amount. Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of Opposite Party No.2 many times, but the Opposite Party No.2 failed to replace the mobile set or to refund the money. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of mobile set in question. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
- None appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, so Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.8.2014 of this Forum.
- Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question. The complainant could not produce any other evidence except his own bald statement regarding the manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question. The complainant has neither mentioned any exact date nor any job sheet number nor produced or mentioned any evidence in the name of Opposite Party No.2. The complainant has also failed to prove on record the averment, he had made in the complaint. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
- Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
- Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sahil Arora Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.
- We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the complainant and ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2.
- From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased a mobile set Model No.A3+ through STAR CJ TV Channel vide Invoice No.201306271124 dated 27.6.2013 for Rs.3990/-. Complainant alleges that since the first day of its purchase, the mobile set in question did not function properly being having manufacturing defect and is suffering from problems like hang, switch on-off itself, missing voice to caller etc. The complainant submitted the mobile set in question to Opposite Party No.2 i.e. the authorized service centre of the company on 9.10.2013 with the aforesaid defects and Opposite Party No.2 assured to remove all the aforesaid defects in the mobile set in question and they returned the mobile set after repair, but same problem still persisted. The complainant again approached Opposite Party No.2 on 19.10.2013 with the request to replace the mobile set and the Opposite Party No.2 assured to replace the mobile set in question within 10 days or to refund the amount. The mobile set in question is lying with Opposite Party No.2, but Opposite Party No.2 has failed to remove the defects in the mobile set or to replace the mobile set in question or to refund the price of the mobile set to the complainant. The complainant, therefore, submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
- Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.2 as per the written version of Opposite Party No.2 is that the complainant could not produce any evidence except his own bald statement regarding manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question. As per the record of Opposite Party No.2, the complainant never approached Opposite Party No.2 with any complaint regarding mobile set in question. After filing of the written version and evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2 did not turn up.
- From the entire above discussion particularly from the perusal of the documents produced by the complainant, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant purchased a mobile set Model No.A3+ through STAR CJ TV Channel vide Invoice No.201306271124 dated 27.6.2013 Ex.C2 for Rs.3990/-. Said mobile set became defective and the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 i.e. the authorized service centre of manufacturing company vide job sheet dated 9.10.2013 Ex.C3 and Opposite Party No.2 kept the mobile set in question and returned to the complainant after repair, but the same problem of hanging while operating, switch on-off itself, missing voice to caller etc. still persisted and the complainant again approached Opposite Party No.2 on 19.10.2013 vide job sheet Ex.C4 with the problem of hanging, switch on-off, missing voice. The Opposite Party No.2 kept the mobile set of the complainant with them, but they failed to repair the same and return the mobile set in question to the complainant after repair. Then the complainant sent letter dated 6.2.2014 Ex.C5 to Opposite Party No.2 as well as another letter dated 2.4.2014 Ex.C7, but the Opposite Party No.2 failed to repair and return the mobile set to the complainant. However, the complainant received e-mail dated 23.8.2014 Ex.C9 from the Opposite Party vide which the Opposite Party told the complainant that they have discussed regarding his complaint of mobile set and got feedback’ “your handset is ready to dispatch” and the complainant was asked to visit the service centre i.e. Opposite Party No.2 to collect the handset. But this e-mail has been received from Opposite Party after the complainant has already filed the present complaint on 12.6.2014 whereas this email Ex.C9 is of dated 23.8.2014. So, the averment of the Opposite Party has been belied by this email Ex.C9 sent by Opposite Party to the complainant that the complainant never approached the Opposite Party for repair of the mobile set in question, rather it proves that the mobile set is with Opposite Party No.2 and the same has been repaired, however not handed over to the complainant and even this e-mail has been sent by Opposite Party to the complainant after filing of the present complaint.
- In view of the entire above discussion particularly in the light of e-mail Ex.C9, Opposite Party No.2 has submitted that they have repaired the mobile set in question. So, the present complaint is disposed of with the directions to the Opposite Parties to hand over the mobile set in question fully repaired and fully functional to the satisfaction of the complainant within 7 days, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the mobile set in question is not repairable to the satisfaction of the complainant, the Opposite Parties shall replace the same with new one of same make and model. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay compensation to the complainant amounting to Rs.1000/-. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.1000/- to the complainant on account of litigation. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 04/02/2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President hrg (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member | |
