Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/181/2020

Aman Kumar S/o Ram Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

JRS Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep bibiyan

30 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISISON, KURUKSHETRA

Complaint No. 181 of 2020

Date of institution: 17.06.2020

                                Date of decision: 30.04.2024

 

Aman Kumar on of Shri Ram Pal, resident of Amin (33), Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, Mobile No.74047-03416, Aadhar No.371115542657

                                                                        …Complainant.

Versus

 

1.     J.R.S. Enterprises, J.R. Complex, Opp. Payal Nursing Home, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra through its authorized signatory.

2.     M.I. Mobile Service Centre, Shop No. 14, First Floor, Vidhata Complex, Opp. New Bus Stand, Kurukshetra through its authorized signatory.

3.     Bajaj Insurance Comp. Ltd. JR. Complex, Opp. Payal Nursing Home, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra through its Manager/authorized signatory.

4.     Rising Stars Mobile India Pvt. Ltd., 380, Belerica Road, Sri City, Chittoor District Andhra Pradesh-517646.

 

…Opposite parties.

 

CORAM:    DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

NEELAM, MEMBER.

RAMESH KUMAR, MEMBER.

 

Present:   Shri Sandeep Bibiyan, Advocate for the OP No.1.

                Shri Atul Mittal, Advocate for the OP No.3.

                Ops No. 1, 2 & 4 ex parte.

 

Order:     

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.             Briefly stated, it is the case of the complainant that on 25.12.2019, he had purchased  Mobile Phone from the OP No.1 of Rs.16,000/- in installments namely Redmi Note 8 Pro 6+ 128 Halo While bearing IMEI No.862298043251153 & 862298043251161.  The complainant further submitted that at the time of selling the said phone, the OP No.1 assured him that the mobile phone is of very good quality and he gave also guarantee of one year. It is further averred by the complainant that the said phone had insured by the OP No.3 for Rs.1847/- of one year warranty period bearing ID No.510BARFP773811.  The complainant assured by the OP No.3 that the said mobile phone is in warranty period w.e.f. 25.12.2019 to 24.12.2020 and in case of any default of the said phone, they would pay all expenses of the said phone. It is further averred by the complainant that there are various defects of the said phone like hanging, touch screen, low battery problem,  camera is not also working properly and therefore, he visited the OP No.2 for replace/repair of the said phone, but the OP No.2 refused to do the same.  Thereafter he visited the shop of the Op no.1 requested the same and OP No.1 told him for visiting the office of the OP No.2. The complainant further alleged that the OP No.2 had assured him that the defect of the said phone would be removed. On 29.02.2020, he again visited the office of OPs No.2 & 3, but they refused to repair the mobile phone by saying that he has to pay Rs.9000/- for repair of the said phone.   The complainant visited the OPs No. 1 & 2 several times for replace of his mobile phone, but it did not yield any fruitful result. The complainant spent a huge amount of Rs.16,000/- for availing the mobile phone services. Hence, this complaint.          

2.             Upon notice, Ops No. 1 & 2 proceeded ex parte vide order dated 01.04.2022, whereas Shri Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate appeared on behalf of the OP No.4, but they never filed any written statement and on 23.10.2023, OP No.4 had also proceeded against ex parte.                

2.             Upon receipt of notice, Shri Atul Mittal, Advocate appeared and filed written statement. In the written statement, while taking the preliminary objections with respect to the unfair trade practice maintainability etc. controverted all the material assertion of the complainant and contended specifically by pleading  inter-alia that since there is any manufacturing defect in the said mobile, than the manufactured or dealer of the said mobile is responsible for it. Therefore, the manufacturer and dealer are liable  to rectify the defect. The OP No.3 further contended that the complainant had never any claim with the answering OP. It is further contended by the OP No.3 that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.3. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

       

3.             Learned counsel for the complainant failed to adduced the evidence and the same had closed by Court Order on 13.03.2023.

4.             Learned counsel for the OP No.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. OW1/A and document EX.O1 & Ex. O2 and closed the evidence on 10.04.2023 by making separate statement.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for parties at length and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

6.             Shri Sandeep Bibiyan, counsel for the complainant that on 25.12.2019, complainant had purchased  Mobile Phone from the OP No.1 of Rs.16,000/- in installments namely Redmi Note 8 Pro 6+ 128 Halo While bearing IMEI No.862298043251153 & 862298043251161.  The counsel of the complainant further argued that at the time of selling the said phone, the OP No.1 assured him that the mobile phone is of very good quality and he  gave  also guarantee   of one year. It is further argued by the complainant that the said phone had insured by the OP No.3 for Rs.1847/- of one year warranty period bearing ID No.510BARFP773811.  The complainant assured by the OP No.3 that the said mobile phone is in warranty period w.e.f.25.12.2019 to 24.12.2020 and in case of any default of the said phone, they would pay all expenses of the said phone. It is further averred by the complainant that there are various defects of the said phone like hanging, touch screen, low battery problem, camera is not also working properly and therefore, he visited the OP No.2 for replace/repair of the said phone, but the OP No.2 refused to do the same.  It is further argued that thereafter he visited the shop of the Op no.1 requested the same and OP No.1 told him for visiting the office of the OP No.2. The counsel of the complainant further argued that the OP No.2 had assured him that the defect of the said phone would be removed. On 29.02.2020, he again visit the office of OPs No.2 & 3, but they refused to repair the mobile phone by saying that he has to pay Rs.9000/- for repair of the said phone.   The complainant visited the OPs No. 1 & 2 several times for replace of his mobile phone, but it did not yield any fruitful result. The counsel of the complainant further argued that complainant spent a huge amount of Rs.16,000/- for availing the mobile phone services. It is further argued by the counsel of the complainant that if such a big company provides such low quality products, that would spoil the name of the company in public as well.

7.             On the other hand, Shri Atul Mittal, Advocate for the OP No.3 argued that since there is any manufacturing defect in the said mobile, than the manufactured or dealer of the said mobile is responsible for it. The counsel of the OP No.3 argued that therefore, the manufacturer and dealer are liable to rectify the defect. The counsel of the OP No.3 further argued that the complainant had never any claim with the answering OP.

8.             There is a manufacturing defect in the mobile phone which was in warranty period. The mobile phone was sent several times to the service centre, but it was not correct. Since the mobile phone is in the warrant period.

9.            Thus, as a sequel to above said discussion, all the respondents except OP No.2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of Rs.16,000/- in equal share to the complainant within 45 days from today. Complainant shall deposit the mobile phone in the service centre i.e. Op No.2 on getting the amount of price of mobile phone. The complaint is accepted with costs, which is assessed of Rs.55,00/.

10.           In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.   

 

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:30.04.2024

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)            

                                                                President,

                                                                DCDRC, Kurukshetra.

 

(Neelam)                (Ramesh Kumar)

Member                   Member

 

Urmil Rani, Stenographer