Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/218

Gurpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

krishna Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Amandeep Singh Parmar

15 May 2019

ORDER

        DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

C.C. No. :                                 218 of 2017

Date of Institution :            6.07.2017

Date of Decision :            15.05.2019

 

Gurpreet Singh aged about 40 years son of Kulwant Singh  r/o Guru Harsahai Road, Sadiq, District Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

1. Krishna Communications, Dealer of Micromax Mobiles, Opposite City Kotwali, Faridkot through  Sh Rajesh Kataria.
2. Apps Daily Solutions Pvt Limited D - 3137 Oberai Golden Estates, Chandivali Form Board, Andheri, (E) Mumbai-400072.
3. Micromax House 90-A, Sector-18, Gurgaon 122015 through its Authorized Signatory.

                                ....Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

          Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

Smt Parampal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:    Sh Amandeep Singh Parmar, Ld Counsel for complainant,

                Sh Vipan Tayal, Ld Counsel for OP-3,

                OP-1 and Op-2 Exparte.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                                        

cc no. 218 of 2017

                                                   Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to Ops to replace the defective mobile hand set with new one and for also directing Ops to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and Rs.5,000/-as litigation expenses.

2                                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a mobile phone of Micromax model G-450 from OP-1 vide bill no. 1068 dt 16.06.2016 worth Rs.9,000/- and at the time of purchase, OP-1 assured complainant of good quality of said phone and also gave one year warranty. It is further submitted that at the instance of OP-1, complainant got insured his mobile phone from OP-2 against theft, burglary, liquid and physical damage and promised to replace the same with new one in case of any defect, damage or theft within warranty period. It is submitted that in April, 2017, display of said mobile phone damaged and it did not work. Complainant immediately brought this complaint into the notice of OP-1 and requested him to get replaced or repaired the same from OP-2 and on asking of OP-1 complainant deposited his mobile phone with OP-2 in May, 2017 and then, OP-1 asked him to come after a week and assured to change the display, but when complainant visited the shop of OP-1, OP-1 misbehaved with him and asked him to create the display and then, he would insert the same into his mobile. When complainant opposed the behaviour of OP-1, he assured to change the mobile of complainant with new one. Then,  after about a week, son of complainant approached OP-1, but Op-1 did not talk to him and despite repeated requests, OP-1 did not pay any heed to genuine requests of complainant. All this has caused  great harassment and mental tension to him, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs.

cc no. 218 of 2017

Complainant has prayed for seeking direction to Ops to pay Rs. 50,000/-as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc  and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                                The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 14.07.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                              OP-1 filed reply through counsel wherein took preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable as no cause of action arises against them and it is an abuse to the process of law. It involves complicated questions of law and facts and is liable to be dismissed in liminee. Complainant has levelled false and incorrect allegations and has tried to misguide or mislead the Forum. OP-1 have denied all the allegations being concocted ones and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. After filing written statement OP-1 did not appear in the Forum on several dates and therefore, vide order dated 10.04.2018, OP-1 was proceeded against exparte.

 5                                                  Ld Counsel for OP-3 filed written statement wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and averred that there is no deficiency in  service on their part. Complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Forum. Complainant has concocted a false story and no cause of action arises against them. Dispute is between complainant and insurance company Op-2 and they have nothing to do in redressing the grievance of complainant. There is no defect in mobile in question and complainant has not

cc no. 218 of 2017

placed on record any evidence to prove his allegations regarding any defect in said mobile phone.

6                                          Notice issued to OP-2 through RC AD did not receive back undelivered and is presumed to be served. No body appeared in the Forum on behalf of OPs either in person or through Counsel to contest the case. Statutory period expired and when OPs did not appear in the Forum even after long waiting on date fixed, then, OP-2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.10.2017.

7                                                Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 3 and then, closed the evidence.

8                                              As there is no rebuttal from OPs side, therefore, ld counsel for complainant and Op-3 advanced arguments. Ld counsel for complainant vehementally argued that complainant purchased a mobile phone of Micromax from OP-1 vide bill Ex C-2, dt 16.06.2016 worth Rs.9,000/- and at the time of purchase, OP-1 insisted complainant to purchase apps daily mobile protection platinum plan to protect his mobile phone from theft, burglary, liquid and physical damage and promised to replace the same within 10 days in case of any damage or theft or repair guarantee of every kind from OP-2. Complainant got activated the protection feature of OP-2 through OP-1. In April, 2017, display of said mobile phone did not work and it was off. Complainant immediately reported the matter to OP-1 and requested him to get replaced or repaired the same from OP-2, and on asking of OP-1 complainant deposited his mobile phone with OP-2

cc no. 218 of 2017

in May, 2017. OP-1 told him to come after a week, but when complainant visited OP-1, OP-1 misbehaved with him and asked him to create the display and then, he would insert the same into his mobile. Complainant made several requests to OP-1 to repair or replace his mobile phone, but despite repeated requests, OP-1 did not pay any heed to genuine requests of complainant, which caused  great harassment to him for which he has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. In reply, OP-3 stressed mainly on the point that there is no defect in the mobile in question. Dispute regarding insurance of mobile in question is between complainant and OP-2 and they have no role in redressing the grievance of complainant. Complainant has not produced any expert or documentary evidence to show that there was any manufacturing defect in said mobile phone. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-3.

9                                        We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant. After careful observation of the record placed on file and evidence led by complainant, it is observed that  from the bill Ex C-1, it is the clear that complainant purchased the mobile phone in question from OP-1. Ex C-3 clearly reveals the pleadings of complainant that he got insured his mobile from OP-2 against any defect, damage or theft  on payment. Through Ex C-1 complainant has reiterated his pleadings and grievance. There is no doubt that complainant purchased the mobile phone in question from OP-1 and got insured the same from OP-2. Said mobile became defective during the subsistence of insurance period for said phone. Grievance of complainant is that despite making several requests and issuance of legal notice to OPs, they did not replace or repaired his mobile phone,

cc no. 218 of 2017

which amounts to deficiency in service. Had OPs paid any heed to hear the complaint of complainant and have provided effective services by doing repair of mobile in question or replaced the same, nature of complaint would have been different. We are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP-2. However, OP-1 is mere retailer and only sold the mobile handset to complainant. The insurance, if any, is to be given by OP-2. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. Hence, the present complaint is allowed against OP-2 and OP-2 is ordered to pay Rs.9,000/- to complainant on account of insurance claim for his mobile phone, which was insured with OP-2. Complainant is directed to hand over the said mobile phone to OP-2 and OP-2 is further directed to pay Rs.3,000/-to complainant for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith Rs.1,000/-as cost of litigation. Complaint against OP-3 is also dismissed. Compliance of the order be made in prescribed time failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complaint against OP-1 stands hereby dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 15.05.2019

(Parampal Kaur)                 (Ajit Aggarwal)

 Member                              President