DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 570 of 2010 Date of Inst:07.09.2010 Date of Decision:17.01.2011 Ramesh Kumar Bamal, Advocate r/o House No.1047, Sector 17, Panchkula. ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. M/s Meridian Mobile Pvt. Ltd., 100, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi-110020. 2. M/s Anmol Watches and Electronics (P) Ltd., SCO 1043, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh 3. M/s Accel Frontline Ltd., SCO No.409-410, Sector 35 (2nd Floor), now shifted to SCO No.310, 2nd Floor, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER SMT.MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER PRESENT: Complainant in person. Sh.Virender Mishra, Agent of OP-1. OPs 2 and 3 already exparte. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Ramesh Kumar Bamal has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to :- i) Refund Rs.2990/- being the price of the handset along with interest @ 18/% from the date of its purchase till its refund. ii) Pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. iii) Pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that, he purchased a new Ply-D 5410 bearing IMEI No.352558026766098 from M/s Anmol Watches & Electronics (P) Ltd., Chandigarh (OP-2) vide bill No.6745 dated 07.07.2009 for Rs.2990/- (Annexure C-1). According to the complainant, soon after its purchase, the mobile phone started giving problems such as recharging, battery was not working properly, bad contacts, network problem etc. The complainant approached OP-2 who advised him to approach M/s Accel Frontline Ltd.(OP-3) who is the authorized service center of the OP-1. Therefore, he handed over the mobile set to the OP-3 and requested to repair of the handset. According to the complainant, after about 4-5 months, he received a telephonic message on 29.01.2010 stating that the handset has been repaired. On 30.01.2010, the complainant went to OP-3 to collect the set but the same was not returned to him. Thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice dated 05.02.2010 upon the Ops requesting them to refund the price of the handset as he had already purchased a new mobile set vide invoice No.6855 dated 25.09.2009 (Annexure C-2) but to no avail. In reply to the legal notice, the complainant was informed that the mobile has been repaired by upgrading the software and the set was lying ready for delivery. However, according to the complainant, the hand set was not delivered to him when he visited Op-3 to collect the same. He visited OP-1 a number of times but to no effect. It has further been pleaded that OPs failed to return the mobile set which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. OPs No.2 and 3 were duly served but nobody appeared on their behalf either in person or through counsel. Therefore, they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.10.2010. 4. In the reply filed by the OP-1, it has been pleaded that the phone in question is not suffering from any manufacturing defect and the problem, if any, was due to the mishandling of the phone by the complainant himself. It has further been pleaded that the service center of the OP repaired the handset but the complainant did not visit the premises of Op-3 to collect the same. It has further been pleaded by the OP-1 that the complainant is pressurizing the OPs to succumb to his baseless and frivolous demands. In these circumstances, according to OP-1, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 5. We have heard the complainant in person and agent of OP-1 and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 6. The averments made in the complaint as reproduced above in para No.2 of the order stands corroborated from the affidavit of the complainant as well as the Annexures C-1 to C-3. Annexure C-1 is the copy of the invoice No. 6745 dated 07.07.2009. From this document, it is proved that the mobile set in question was purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs.2990/-. Annexure C-2 is the copy of the invoice No. 6855 dated 25.09.2009 whereby the complainant purchased another new mobile set for a sum of Rs.4190/-. Annexure C-2/A is the copy of warranty card. From this document, it is apparent that the mobile set was within the warranty on the day, it was handed over to OP-3 for repairs. 7. The averments made in the written statement of OP-1 to the effect that the mobile handset was ready for delivery after repairs and the complainant did not collect it are based on hearsay evidence. OP-3 to whom the handset was handed over for repairs has not opted to join the proceedings and it was proceeded against exparte. OP-3 was the best person to tell as to whether the complainant visited the premises of OP-3 to collect the mobile phone or not. OP-1 has failed to disclose the source of his information about the failure of the complainant to visit the premises for collecting the mobile phone. In these circumstances, from the material on record, it is proved that despite the fact that the mobile phone was delivered to OP-3, who is the authorized service center of OP-1, the said mobile phone was not returned to the complainant after repairs. So, it amounts to deficiency in service. 8. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs to give a sum of Rs.2990/- to the complainant being the price of the mobile phone in question. OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation. 9. This order be complied with by OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to pay Rs.4990/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from date of filing of the complaint till its realization besides costs of litigation. 10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 17.01.2011 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER Sd/- (MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA) MEMBER
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
