Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/372

Shashwant Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kiran Mobile Care - Opp.Party(s)

Hari Om Jindal Adv.

02 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. : 372 of 09.05.2017

   Date of Decision            :   02.08.2017

 

Shashwant Jindal aged 21 years son of Sh.Hariom Jindal, r/o C-37, Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus

Kiran Mobile Care, Authorized Service Centre, B-19/545, Upstairs, Jaipur Diamonds, College Road, Near Fountain Chowk, Ludhiana-141001, through Proprietor/Partner/Owner/Authorized representative.

…Opposite party

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant               :         Sh.Hari Om Jindal, Advocate

For OP                             :         Ex-parte

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                       Complainant, a law student, purchased a mobile phone of Samsung Company brand S-6 from Classic Gifts, Ghumar Mandi Chowk, Ludhiana on 23.10.2015. Screen of the mobile phone was not giving proper display since from 15.8.2016. As complainant was studying at Sonipat, so he could not get  time for checking the phone. However, when the complainant returned back to Ludhiana during winter break in January 2017, then he visited the office-cum-service centre of OP on 9.1.2017 for getting of the mobile phone checked. Then OP informed that SVC LCD assembly needs replacement with a new part. OP offered cost of Rs.7825/- for  

replacement of the part. That price was found on higher side by the complainant. However, OP disclosed that said part is exclusive monopoly of Samsung company and as such, the same will not be available outside the service station. So, complainant was left with no choice and he accepted the cost offer for replacement of the part. Promise for return of the mobile phone within a maximum time of 5 days was made. Complainant claims that he was deprived of service of mobile phone for five days, despite the fact that replacement of part was a job of 30 minutes only. No satisfactory reply was given by OP. Complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP and after expiry of five days, he went for getting back the mobile                phone, but the same was not returned. This was not returned despite number of other visits to OP by the complainant. A new excuse was used to be put by OP every time. After much harassment of the complainant, he was informed through Mr.Vijay on 27.1.2017 that part had been replaced. Then complainant visited OP, the service station on 27.1.2017 for taking the delivery of the mobile phone and an invoice was raised. On examination of the phone, it was found as if OP had damaged the mobile phone’s cover or replaced the original cover with a damaged cover. Mr.Vijay and Jaspreet of OP accepted their fault and negligence in damaging the cover. OP through Mr.Vijay informed complainant that he could take the delivery of the phone with the damaged cover and return to the service station on the next date for the replacement of the damaged cover with a new cover. OP noted down a remark on the invoice that black cover is pending. This invoice was signed by Jaspreet Singh along with another person. Repair amount of Rs.7825/- was paid by the complainant for getting delivery of the mobile phone on next visit to the OP by the complainant, but the latter refused to replace the damaged cover. Complainant could not attend his college in the hope that his phone would be repaired. Because of the damaged cover, the phone could not be held properly and it slipped from the hands of the complainant many times causing further damage. Complainant claims to have suffered a lot of harassment and humiliation since from 9.1.2017. Complainant claims that he had been deprived of the use of mobile phone for 19 days i.e.for period from 9.1.2017 to 27.1.2017. Email dated 4.2.2017 and legal notice dated 14.2.2017 even were sent, but no reply received and as such, this complaint filed for seeking directions to OP to refund Rs.7825.44P along with interest. Even direction sought to OP for replacing the phone which was damaged by OP. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- more claimed.

2.                 OP is ex-parte in this case.

3.                 Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents EX.C1 to Ex.C4 and then his counsel closed the ex-parte evidence.

4.                 Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments alone addressed by counsel for complainant and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

5.                 Ex.C1 is the retail invoice showing as if Samsung S6 mobile purchased by the complainant from Classic Gifts, Ghumar Mandi Chowk, Ludhiana on 23.10.2015 for consideration of Rs.40,500/-. Further, Tax/VAT invoice Ex.C2 is produced to show that the complainant visited OP in January 2017. This Tax/VAT invoice Ex.C2  is of date 27.1.2017, through which sale of SVC LCD assembly-OCTA(E/White):SM-G920F, White took place for consideration of Rs.7825.44P including labour cost. It is the case of complainant that these parts were provided by OP for repair of the mobile phone. As the mobile phone in question purchased on 23.10.2015 and defect occurred in January 2017 and as such, it is obvious that defect occurred after warranty period of one year. The warranty period was to lapse on 22.10.2016, but for rectifying the defect in the mobile, above referred parts purchased on 27.1.2017 and as such, repair virtually got by the complainant after expiry of the warranty period. So, liability of OP to bear the cost of the parts certainly is not there. So, claim for refund of paid amount of Rs.7825.44P is not sustainable at all.

6.                 Second grievance of the complainant is that mobile phone was returned to him with damaged cover, but the same has not been replaced despite assurance and despite visits by the complainant to OP. Certainly it was the responsibility of OP to return the repaired mobile phone with cover to complainant. However, damaged cover supplied to the complainant and as such, same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP. So, complainant entitled to have new cover of the mobile phone from OP. As complainant was deprived from use of the mobile phone for 19 days during period from 9.1.2017 to 27.1.2017 and even he had to visit OP time and again for getting back the repaired mobile phone and even had to make efforts for getting the cover of the mobile phone and as such, he suffered mental harassment and agony, due to which, he is entitled for compensation under this head along with litigation expenses. Except this, complainant not entitled to any other relief because after going through complaint as well as affidavit, it is made out that deficiency in service on the part of OP was  in providing the cover of mobile after it stood damaged at the hands of OP or delay in return of the repaired mobile. 

7.                 Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that OP will hand over the new cover of the mobile within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP. Payment of these amounts be also made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

8.                 File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                                     (G.K.Dhir)

 Member                                                              President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:02.08.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.