THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 112-15
Date of Institution : 24.2.2015
Date of Decision : 20.10.2015
Mangal Singh son of Gurnam Singh C/o 97, Green Avenue, Deg Laster, Near EMC Hospital, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Jaina Marketing and Associates, D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase i, New Delhi 110020 through its Director/Principal Officer
Cell Hut, 202-203, IInd Fllor, Sunrise Plaza, Cooper Road, Amritsar through its Prop,/Partner
North India Top Company (P) Ltd., TCI Supply Chain Solutions, C/o Acorn Warehouses and Logistics Park, 68, VIII-Kapriwas and Malpura Rewari Haryana through its Manager
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. Munish Kohli,Adv.
For the opposite party No. 3 : Sh.Anil Sharma,Advocate
For opposite parties No. 1 & 2: Sh.Sanjeet Singh,Advocate
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member
-2-
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Mangal Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased one Karbon mobile from opposite party No.3 for Rs. 5999/- vide invoice dated 13.8.2014 .According to the complainant from the very beginning the mobile set developed inherent manufacturing defect of getting hang while on receiving call and the sound quality is very poor besides low battery problems as well as auto rotate of the said handset is not working proeprly. The complainant visited opposite party No.2 with respect to the said defects, but opposite party No.2 did not pay any attention towards the requests of the complainant and finally on 31.12.2014 the opposite party No.2 issued a job sheet with respect to said defects . The complainant time and again visited the opposite party No.2 with the request to repair the mobile set and opposite party No.2 again issued a job sheet and the mobile set is still lying with the opposite party. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one or in the alternative to refund the price of the mobile set. Compensation of Rs,. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant approached the opposite paty No.2 on
-3-
31.12.2014 after four months from the date of purchase with phone hang problem. At the time of receiving hand set the same was narrated to the complainant that the said set needs to be sent for company level (L-3) and it may takes 20-25 days. So with the consent of the complainant, the hand set was sent to the company to remove the said defects. The complainant was informed to collect his repaired hand set but the complainant refused to accept the same offer and after that the complainant never approached the opposite party No.2 service centre . While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite party No.3 in its written version has submitted that there was no discrepancy or deficiency in service with regard to delivery of products on the part of opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.3 was limited and restricted only to delivery of product. It was submitted that complainant was already infomed that opposite parties No.1 & 2 are responsible for any manufacturing defects, if any in the said product. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1,original receipt of purchase of online mobile Ex.C-2, copy of job card Ex.C-3.
5. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh. Ajay Kumar Ex.OP1/1.
6. Opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh.Sahil Arora Ex.OP2/1.
7. Opposite party No.3 tendered affidavit of Sh.Sanjiv Mehra Ex.OP3/1,
-4-
authority letter Ex.OP3/2, invoice Ex.OP3/3, purchase oder Ex.OP3/4.
8. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the opposite parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
9. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant puchased Karbon Mobile set from opposite party No.3 online vide invoice dated 13.8.2014 Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 5999/-. The complainant alleges that said mobile set became defective of getting hang while on receiving call , sound quality of the mobile set is very poor besides low battery problem as well as autorotate of the said hand set is not working properly. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 , authorized service centre on 31.12.2014 vide job sheet Ex.C-3 and handed over the mobile set to opposite party No.2, but opposite party No.2 could not repair the same nor handed over the mobile set to the complainant. Since then i.e. 31.12.2014 the mobile set has been lying with opposite party No.2 unrepaired. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
10. Whereas the case of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is that the complainant approached opposite party No.2 on 31.12.2014 vide job sheet Ex.C-3 with problem
-5-
of phone hang. The complainant was told that the said set needs to be sent to the company for repair (L-3) and it may take 20 to 25 days, so with the consent of the complainant the said hand set was sent to the company. Thereafter the complainant was told to collect his repaired set but the complainant refused to accept the same and thereafter the complainant never approached opposite party No.2, service centre. Ld.counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2 submitted that as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 2 qua the complainant.
11. Whereas case of opposite party No.3 is that he is retailer and only sold the mobile set to the complainant vide invoice Ex.C-2 . For repair and replacement of the mobile set only manufacturer or the service centre are liable .Ld.counsel for opposite party No.3 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
12. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased Karbon Mobile set online from opposite party No.3 manufactured by opposite party No.1 , vide invoice dated 13.8.2014 Ex,.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 5999/- with one year warranty. The said mobile set became defective and was handed over by the complainant to opposite party No.2, authorized service centre for repair vide job sheet dated 31.12.2014 Ex.C-3. Since then the mobile set is lying with opposite paty No.2 and they could not repair the same nor returned the same to the complainant. Opposite party No.2 also did not produce the mobile set
-6-
of the complainant even in this Forum to prove that the said mobile set has been repaired properly and ready to be handed over to the complainant. All this shows that mobile set of the complainant is not repairable that is why the same has not been handed over by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant after repair. Therefore, opposite parties No.1 & 2 are liable to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make and model or in the alternative to refund the price of the hand set to the complainant.
13. Consequently the complaint is allowed with costs and opposite parties No.1 & 2 are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make and model or in the alternative to refund the price of the mobile set i.e. Rs. 5999/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made to the complainant. Opposite parties NO.1 & 2 are also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 1000/- to the complainant. 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.
20.10.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
/R/ ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member
