Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/482/2014

Karan Singh 35 year s/o Sh.Raghubir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mehandiratta Music world - Opp.Party(s)

Bhanwar Singh

10 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No…482 of 2014.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 17.11.2014.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 10.06.2016.

Karan Singh aged about 35 years son of Sh. Raghubar Singh, resident of village Arnauli, Post Office Bherthal, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Mehandiratta Music World, 4-C, Mela Singh Chowk, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar-135001 through its Prop./ Partner.
2. Net Communication, Shop No. 59C, near Punjab National Bank, First Floor, above Punjab National Bank, First Floor, above Chunri Boutique, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar through its Manager.
3. Spice Mobility Ltd. Spice Global Knowledge Park, 19A-20A, Sector 125, Noida (U.P) PIN 201301 through its Managing Director.                                                                                                                                                 …Respondents.

                       

BEFORE          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG,  PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Bhanwar Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant. 

               Sh. Rajan Bhatia, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

           

ORDER

1.                     Complainant Sh. Karan Singh 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 replace the defective mobile set of complainant with new one or to refund the billed amount of Rs. 6800/-  alongwith interest and further to pay compensation on account of mental agony, harassment, financial  loss suffered by him and cost of proceedings.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant purchased one mobile phone make spice Model No. MI506 for a sum of Rs. 6800/- vide Bill No. 37402 dated 05.04.2014 from the OP No.1 and manufacturer is OP No.3 whose service centre is OP No.2. After purchasing the mobile set in question complainant started to face problem as the mobile set in question itself stopped working and became shut down. On this, complainant visited the authorized service centre i.e. Op No.2 and handed over his mobile set for repair on 23.07.2014. Thereafter, the complainant received a message from OP No.2 that they have removed the defect from the mobile phone, on this the complainant went to the office of Op No.2 on 09.09.2014 but when the complainant checked his mobile set then he found that the touch of the said mobile phone was not working. On this, the complainant did not take the aforesaid mobile phone and again lodged his complaint vide service request no. 07100870E90085 dated 09.02.2014 and handed over the mobile set again to Op No.2. When the complainant again visited the office of Op No.2 to collect the phone on 14.10.2014 but again on checking the mobile set in question was having some other problems such as mike portion of the said mobile phone was defective and the charging system of the said mobile phone was also not working. On this, the complainant again deposited his mobile set with the Op No.2 vide request No. 07100870EA0011 dated 04.10.2014 and the OP No.2 assured the complainant that this time they will remove all the defects and asked the complainant to collect the same after one week. When after one week, the complainant visited the office of Op No.2, then the representative of OP No.2 asked the complainant to visit again after few days. As the representative of Op No.2 failed to remove the defects from the mobile set in question as mobile set in question was having manufacturing defect despite so many requests. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice Ops appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as  complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in the law and is liable to be dismissed; complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops; the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and on merit it has been stated that since the complainant has failed to attach any of the job sheet to prove his allegation, this complaint is liable to be dismissed and further it has been stated that complainant presented his mobile set in question for repair on 18.02.2015 vide job sheet No. 07100870F20178. The handset was checked thoroughly and repaired accordingly. The complainant was intimated on his registered mobile number and through SMS but the complainant has not collected the handset in question from the Op No.2. Even after receiving the summons from this Forum the representative of the Ops contacted the complainant to collect his hand set from service centre but he refused to collect the same. The act and conduct of the complainant shows malafide intention. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as photo copy of Bill Bearing No. 37402 dated 05.04.2014 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of job sheet bearing No. 07100870E 90085 dated 09.09.2014 as Annexure C-2 and photo copy of job sheet bearing No. 07100870E0011 dated 04.10.2014 as Annexure C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Ops failed to adduce any evidence, hence the evidence of the Ops was closed by court order dated 16.05.2016.

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.                     It is not disputed that complainant purchased the mobile set make spice Model No. MI506 for an amount of Rs. 6800/- vide bill No. 37402 dated 05.04.2014 from OP No.1 which is evident from the copy of purchase bill Annexure C-1. It is also not disputed that due to some problem in the mobile set in question the complainant visited the service centre i.e. OP No.2 so many times which is evident from the job sheets dated 09.09.2014 (Annexure C-2) and 04.10.2014 (Annexure C-3). Even the Ops has also admitted in para No.5 of the written statement that the complainant visited the service centre of Op No.2 for repair of the mobile set in question on 18.02.2015 vide job sheet No. 07100870F20178. Further, the OPs have admitted in this para that till date the mobile set in question is lying with the service centre i.e. OP No.2. The version of the Ops that complainant has not collected the mobile set in question due to malafide intention is not tenable as no such evidence has been placed on file to prove that the complainant was informed to collect the mobile set in question. Even no application has been moved by the Ops before this Forum seeking the direction to the complainant to collect the mobile set from the Op No.2. Further, the Ops failed to produce the mobile set in question before this Forum for handing over the same to the complainant. From the perusal of job sheets Annexure C-2 and C-3 and pleading of the parties, it is clear that mobile set in question was having some problem due to that complainant was forced to visit the service centre, so many times and remains without mobile for several days even the mobile set in question is still lying with the OP No.2 service Centre. Hence in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of Ops and the complainant is entitled to get relief.

8.                     Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs to refund an amount of Rs. 6000/- in lump sum after deducting depreciation. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs. 1000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to recover the interest at the rate of 7% per annum for the defaulting period on the amount of Rs. 6000/- and shall also 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: 10.06.2016.

(ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

 PRESIDENT

                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                    MEMBER.