BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 675 of 2015
Date of Institution: 22.11.2015
Date of Decision : 22.04.2016
Ravi @ Harjit Singh son of Gurcharan Singh, resident of village: Mahala, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar.
Complainant
Versus
- M/s.K.R.Mobiles, through its Prop/ Partner, Shop No.1, Majha Hotel, Link Road, Opposite Chinar Hotel, Amritsar (Dealer)
- Cell Hut through its Office Incharge, Authorised Service Centre, Shop No. 201-2002, Sunrise Plaza, IInd Floor, Cooper Road, Near Bakewell Bakery, Amritsar (Service Centre).
- Karbonn Mobiles through its CEO/ Director/ MD, Corporate Office, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-I, Delhi (Marketer).
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant: In person.
For Opposite Party No.1: Exparte.
For Opposite Parties No.2 and 3: Sh.Sanjeet Singh, Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Sh.Ravi @ Harjit Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he purchased one Karbonn Octanet mobile IEMI No.911352900402911 which is product of Opposite Party No.3 from Opposite Party No.1 vide Cash Memo No. 575 dated 10.2.2015 on payment of cash of Rs.10,000/- for his own use. Copy of cash memo is enclosed. The complainant purchased the above said Mobile Set of Opposite Party No.3 on the recommendations of the company for its good performance on social media/ net and on the recommendations of Opposite Party No.1. Unfortunately, the Mobile Set created / shown jek-charging problem on 7.10.2015 and other problem sand it was not working properly. On 6.10.2015 the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 and apprised him about the problem in the Mobile Set as the Mobile Set was within guarantee/ warrantee period, but Opposite Party No.1 refused to attend the complainant on the ground that they have no liability after sale and referred the complainant to Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre, at Amritsar. On the asking of Opposite Party No.1, the complainant alongwith defective Mobile Set approached to Opposite Party No.2 on 6.10.2015 and Opposite Party No.2 told him that there is no defect in the Mobile Set and only defect is in the charging of battery. Opposite Party No.2 sold one new ADP Battery and charged Rs.350/- from the complainant against Invoice No. 1600 dated 6.10.2015, copy of cash memo is attached. But even then the defect in the Mobile Set persisted and Opposite Party No.2 received the defective Mobile Set against Job Sheet No. 0425 dated 7.10.2015 from the complainant and returned the same on the next date with assurance that the defect has been removed and now the Mobile Set was OK. On the assurance of Opposite Party No.2, the complainant received back Mobile Set but against after use for two days the problem in Mobile Set again occurred and complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.2 again received the defective Mobile Set against job sheet No. 0493 dated 10.10.2015 and told the complainant that they will return the Mobile Set within a day or so after getting the same repaired. Since 10.10.2015 the Mobile Set is lying with Opposite Party No.2, but they have failed to remove the fault or return the Mobile Set to the complainant despite regular visits to Opposite Party No.2. Every time the complainant was asked to come after day or so. The complainant had faced great hardship in the absence of mobile facility. Opposite Parties are responsible for the removal of the defect in the Mobile Set in dispute or in the alternative to replace the old Mobile Set with a new Mobile Set or to refund the price paid by the complainant. Hence this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint written statement on their behalf, whereas Opposite Party No.1 did not put in appearance to contest the complaint despite due service, so Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte. In their joint written statement, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 took a preliminary objection therein inter alia that the complainant could not produce any documentary evidence on record with the complaint and the Mobile Set in question did not have any manufacturing defect, so the Mobile Set can not be ordered to be replaced and no case is made out for the refund of the price of the Mobile Set. Even answering Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 have made request that as per the above facts and submissions, the complaint may be dismissed. On merits, sale of the Mobile Set in dispute in favour of complainant by Opposite Party No.3 is an admitted fact. It is submitted that the complainant has purchased the Mobile Set on 10.02.2015 and after more than 8 months, the said Mobile Set created battery problem and the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre. It is important to mention here that the said battery was covered under the warranty period and the same was narrated to the complainant. After the satisfaction of the complainant, the battery was changed subject to the charge of the cost of the battery. On the same day, the Mobile Set was handed over to the complainant after his full satisfaction. After 3 days thereafter, the complainant again approached Opposite Party No.2 and stated that Mobile Set had misc.problems as narrated by the complainant. However, the Mobile Set in dispute was retained for check up. Thereafter, the complainant never approached Opposite Party No.2 to get back the Mobile Set in dispute. After waiting for two days, Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre made a call to the complainant to get his Mobile Set, but Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre was shocked to listen the reply of the complainant that the complainant will not take back the Mobile Set and he has deposited it just for creating another job sheet and he will see as to how the company will not give him new Mobile Set alongwith cash. The complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of court. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and a prayer for the dismissal of the complaint with costs was made.
3. In his bid to prove the case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill dated 10.2.2015 Ex.C2, copy of estimate Ex.C3, copy of job sheet Ex.C4, copy of job sheet Ex.C5 and closed his evidence.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Sahil Arora Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre.
5. We have heard the complainant as well as ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased the Mobile Set in dispute from Opposite Party No.1 vide bill dated 10.02.2015 for an amount of Rs.10,000/-. It is also not disputed that the Mobile Set in dispute after few months of its purchase started creating problems and the complainant approached Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre for getting the Mobile Set in dispute repaired. Copy of the job sheet dated 7.10.2015 account for Ex.C5. After the change of the battery, the Mobile Set in dispute did not improve its service and the complainant again had to approach Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre on 10.10.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C4, but however Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre retained the Mobile Set in dispute and did not return it back to the complainant despite various visits made by the complainant. All this shows that Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 have been deficient in service. The plea of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 that the complainant did not approach them for getting the Mobile Set in dispute back after depositing the same with them on 10.10.2015 does not appeal to reason because the Mobile Set being a necessity these days and a person can not do without it for a day even. Simple stand taken by Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 has been that the complainant went on to collect the job sheets one after the other to press upon Opposite Parties either for refund of the price of the Mobile Set in dispute or for replacement of the old Mobile Set with new one of the same quality, which is also not amenable to reason. Had the Mobile Set been not giving any problem as stated in the complaint, there was absolutely no reason with the complainant either to approach the seller or the service provider for getting the Mobile Set in dispute repaired. There was also no occasion with Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre to retain the Mobile Set in dispute on 10.10.2015 if the same was not suffering from any defect.
7. Although the complainant has not been able to make it a case for the replacement of the Mobile Set in dispute or refund of the sale price of the Mobile Set in dispute, yet it is a good case for ordering the repair of the Mobile Set in dispute to the satisfaction of the complainant at the end of Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre and the complaint stands allowed accordingly. Opposite Party No.2-Authorised Service Centre is directed to repair the Mobile Set in dispute to the satisfaction of the complainant and return the same to the complainant against duly executed receipt. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order executed under the law. Copies of the orders 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.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 22.4.2016
(S.S.Panesar )
President
hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member
