DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.158 of 14
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 04-06.2014
DATE OF ORDER: 17-06-2016
Narender Singh son of Sh. Nar Singh, resident of House No. B-9, New Bharat Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani (Haryana).
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- Laxmi Mobiles, Near Liberty showroom, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani (Haryana).
- Saini Mobiles Point, Authorize Service Centre of Spice Mobiles etc. Ghan Shyam Market, Near Jallan Eye Hospital, Bhiwani (Haryana).
- Spice Mobiles, Plot No. 357, Near Shivalik Public School, Chandigarh-Pin. 160001, through its authorized person.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present:- Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Shankar Sharma, Advocate for OP no. 1.
Sh. M.S. Parmar, Advocate for OP no. 3.
OP no. 2 exparte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that he had purchased a mobile phone from OP no. 1 vide bill no. 5802 dated 06.06.2013 amounting to Rs. 1500/- with two years warranty. It is alleged that since very beginning of the purchase of the mobile phone, there was a manufacturing defect as the same was not functioning properly from 15.12.2013 and the same was deposited with OP no. 2. It is alleged that OP no. 2 returned the mobile saying that it has been repaired and when he use the same it was not working properly. It is alleged that the OP no. 1 was time and again intimated regarding the defect of the mobile phone, but he failed to rectify the same. Hence the complainant was deprived of use of the Hand Set and suffered a loss. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Ops he has to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Now the complainant has claimed to replace the mobile phone with compensation and costs by way of filing present complaint.
2. On appearance, OP no. 1 has filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has not come in the Forum with clean hands. It is submitted that the work of the answering respondent is only to sale out the manufactured product of the Ops no. 2 & 3. It is submitted that it is clearly mentioned in warranty clause that it is the duty of the authorized service centre and the company i.e. Ops no. 2 & 3 to give service after sale to their consumers. It is submitted that the answering respondent has no liability of any kind of guarantee in respect of any mobile set, if any same is bounded upon the manufacturer or customer care of the mobile set. It is submitted that as and when any consumer visited at the shop of the answering respondent, he gave his best service. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OP no. 2 has failed to come present. Hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.07.2014.
4. OP No. 3 on appearance also filed separate written statement alleging therein that the answering respondent possesses a goodwill and have an established market and have assumed a good reputation over the years in respect of the business. It is submitted that since the complainant has failed to attach any of the document in support of his statement, all the allegations are baseless. It is submitted that there is no single job sheet attached with the complaint and there is no deficiency on the part of answering respondent. It is submitted that since, the limited warranty of the said handset has already been expired long back, the answering respondent stands released from its warranty obligations immediately upon expiry of the limited warranty. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-4 alongwith supporting affidavit.
6. In reply thereto, the counsel for OP no. 1 has tendered into evidence affidavit DW1/A and document R-1. Learned counsel for the OP no. 3 placed on record supporting affidavit.
7. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the mobile handset was purchased on 06.06.2013 vide bill Annexure C-1 by complainant and the said handset is not working properly since 15.12.2013. The complainant got repaired his mobile handset from the OP no. 2 several times but still it is not working properly.
9. The counsel for the Ops no. 1 & 3 reiterated the contents of the reply, respectively. The handset of the complainant is not having any manufacturing defect. The limited warranty of one year is by the manufacturing company of the mobile handset. The complaint of the complainant is false and baseless.
10. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to refund Rs. 1200/- to the complainant and the complainant is directed to deposit the mobile handset in question with the Ops within 7 days from the date of passing of this order. This order be complied with by the Ops within 30 days from the date of passing of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:.17-06-2016. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi),
Member
