Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/329/2014

Parveen Kumar S/o Harbhajan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kamal Gift Galary - Opp.Party(s)

J.S.Kaler

26 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                             Complaint No. 329 of 2014.

                                                                             Date of institution: 04.08.2014.

                                                                             Date of decision: 26.02.2016

Parveen Kumar  aged about 32 years son of Sh. Harbhajan Singh resident of Village & Post Office Teli Majra, Ambala Road, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            …Complainant.

 

                                                     Versus

 

1. Kamal Gift Galary, near Police Station, Buria Gate, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Proprietor/Partner.   
2. Sidhi telecom Pvt. Ltd. Branch Office Shop No.59-C, 1^st Floor, M.T. near Raman Hotel, Yamuna Nagar Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar at present office near Jain Jewellers Opp. Lal Dawara Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor/Partner.  
3. Spice Head Office, near Badarpur, Metro Station, Delhi and second address SRL Mohan Co-operative L4, B-II/26, Mohan Cooperative #1 New Delhi, through its Managing Director. 

                                                                                                                                …Respondents.

                         

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG,  PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Manveer Kler, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

               Respondent No.1 already ex-parte vide order dated 20.10.2014. 

               Sh. Rajan Bhatia, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2 &3.

                          

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Parveen Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to refund Rs. 4100/- i.e. price of mobile hand set alongwith interest thereon and further to pay compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as cost of proceedings. 

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant purchased one Spice Mobile MI 426 bearing IMEI No. 911337054227842 vide bill No. 1616 dated 02.01.2014 for a sum of Rs. 4100/- from the OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.3 and Op No.2 is the service centre of OP No.3. Since the very beginning the performance of the mobile was good, but after few months the mobile handset did not work properly and after some time the display of the above handset was destroyed and immediately the matter was reported to the OP No.1 but OP No.1 directed the complainant to check the mobile phone from OP No.2 and as per direction of OP No.1 the complainant visited the service centre of spice mobile on 21.4.2014. OP No.2 retained the hand set for removing the defect and the same was sent to OP No.3 for technical assistance. Thereafter, on 20.05.2014 the complainant again approached the OP No.2 regarding his hand set who told that the hand set will be handed over to him on 23.5.2014. On 23.5.2014, the OP No.2 handed over the mobile set after swapping the mother board, the EMI No. 911337054731546 changed from 911337054227842 and the OP No.2 charged a sum of Rs. 1000/- for removing the said fault and when the complainant objected to make the payment then OP No.2 refused to give the handset to the complainant and the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1000/- to the OP No.2. After 23.5.2014, the complainant received a telephonic call from police head quarter, Delhi call No. 08510864208 that one Jai Singh lodged a FIR No. 345 dated 29.4.2014 regarding mobile theft against mobile EMI No. 9113370547312546. Thereafter, the complainant immediately contacted with OPs No.1 & 2 and told about the facts mentioned above but they did not give any satisfactory reply and put off the matter with one pretext or the other.  As such, the complainant has suffered great mental agony, pain and torture at the hands of OPs which amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint. 

3.                     Upon notice OP No. 1 failed to appear despite service, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20.10.2014. OPs No.2 & 3 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law, not maintainable, no deficiency in service, and on merit it has been denied that the service centre charged a sum of Rs. 1000/- from the complainant for replacement of mother board whereas the hand set was repaired completely and was ready for delivery on 8.5.2014. the complainant was intimated accordingly to collect his handset but it was the complainant who took the longer time to collect the handset from the service centre on 23.5.2014. It has been further mentioned that from the perusal of FIR No. 345 dated 29.4.2014 nothing has been disclosed that the complaint was lodged against stolen handset as alleged or at all. All the allegations made by the complainant are denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A, Rejoinder to written statement as Annexure CW/B and document such as Photo copy of Bill No. 1616 dated 02.01.2014 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of job sheet dated 21.4.2014 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of delivery note as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of invoice dated 23.5.2014 as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of FIR as Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 failed to adduce any evidence and their evidence was closed by court order on 24.02.2016.

6.         We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file carefully and minutely.

7.                     From the perusal of Annexure C-1, which is copy of bill, it is evident that the complainant purchased the spice Mobile set vide Invoice No. 1616 dated 02.01.2014 for Rs. 4100/- from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.3. Further, it is evident from Job sheet dated 21.4.2014 (Annexure C-2) that the complainant approached the OP No.2 for display problem and the same has been retained by the OP No.2. The version of the OPs is that the mobile hand set was ready for delivery on 8.5.2014 and the complainant was intimated accordingly to collect his handset but the complainant failed to collect the mobile in question due to the reason best known to him and denied the fact that the service centre charged Rs. 1000/- from the complainant.

8.                     After going through the above noted circumstances, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OPs as the OP No.2 charged Rs. 1000/- from the complainant in the warranty period on account of repair of mobile (change of mother board) of the mobile in question which is evident from invoice/bill bearing No.021 dated 23.5.2014 (Annexure C-4) issued by the authorized service centre i.e. OP No.2. From the perusal of job sheet dated 21.4.2014 (Annexure C-2) it is clear that mobile in question was having display problem and accepted by the service centre and asked the complainant to collect the mobile in question on 8.5.2014. Further, it has been admitted by the OPs No.2 & 3 in para No.6 of the written statement that mobile in question was ready for delivery after repair on 8.5.2014 but the complainant collected the same on 23.5.2014. Meaning thereby that mobile in question remained with the service centre of Op No.2 for a long time since 21.4.2014 to 23.5.2014 due to fault in the mobile in question. Further from the contents of FIR placed on file by the complainant (Annexure C-5) it can be presumed that complainant might have faced some hardship due to the fault of  OPs and the OPs failed to explain the facts in what manner they used the EMI number of stolen mobile. However, complainant has not filed any cogent evidence that what was the consequences of that FIR before this Forum. Hence without commenting on this aspect we proceed with the complaint of the complainant only in respect of manufacturing defect in the mobile in question.

9.                     In these circumstances noted above, the complainant has suffered hardship due to the manufacturing defect in the mobile in question for a couple of days which is evident from the job sheets Annexure C-2 to C-4 and OPs charged Rs. 1000/- from the complainant during the warranty period for replacing the mother board of the mobile in question. Hence, we have no option except to hold that the OPs are deficient in providing proper services to the complainant as well as played unfair trade practice. As such, the complainant is entitled for relief.

 10.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs No.2 & 3 to refund a sum of Rs. 1000/- to the complainant charged in warranty period and further to pay Rs. 1000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses failing which the complainant shall be entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the awarded amount for the defaulting period till its realization. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court: 26.02.2016.

(ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                             PRESIDENT

                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                     MEMBER.