| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.233 of 02-03-2016 Decided on 10-11-2016 Prem Pal Singh Chauhan (PPS Chauhan) S/o Late RS Chauhan R/o Qtr. No.C-12, NFL Township, Bathinda. Pin-151003. ........Complainant Versus 1.Micromax Care, M/s Unitech, 2686, First Floor, Opp. Dr.Jagmal Neuro & CT Scan, G.T Road Near Old Bus Stand, Pin-151001, Bathinda. 2.Sumeet Kumar, Director, YU Televentures Private Limited, Block-A, Plot No.21/14, Nariana Industrial Area, Pin-110028, New Delhi. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- Complainant: Sh.Prem Pal Singh Chauhan, in person. For opposite party No.1: Sh.Amit Ghai, Advocate. Opposite party No.2: Ex-parte. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President:- The complainant Prem Pal Singh Chauhan (PPS Chauhan) (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Micromax Care and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that after going through the functions and service facilities by YU Televentures Private Limited, he purchased one YU Yureka Smart mobile handset through Amazon on 12.3.2015. It is alleged that on 20.11.2015, the complainant found that in his mobile handset, the camera icon was not appearing and camera was not operating. He talked to YU customer support on their phone and he was sent soft and hard settings of camera, but it could not solve his problem. He again contacted YU customer support centre, it gave him address of Micromax at Bathinda. He handed over his mobile handset to Micromax Care Service Centre at Bathinda on 27.11.2015. On 30.11.2015, opposite party No.1 disclosed that the mobile handset has been sent to Delhi for replacement and asked the complainant that he will receive new mobile handset after 14-15 days, but the mobile handset was not received despite repeated visits. Ultimately, the complainant moved a letter to opposite party No.1. Thereafter on 5.1.2016, he received Yureka smart phone, but on opening, he found that it was without battery whereas he handed over his mobile handset with battery. On 6.1.2016, he received battery from opposite party No.1. It is further alleged that in the replaced mobile handset also, YU Universe & facebook were not running and Cynozen 12.1, operating system was not updating, but it was downloading again and again when he connected to internet. On 11.1.2016, the complainant talked to YU Support customer care number, it sent him soft settings and flashing, but after this, the mobile handset was having the same problem. On 27.1.2016, he handed over the mobile handset to opposite party No.1, it updated the mobile handset, but to no effect. Thereafter opposite party No.1 disclosed that it has sent the mobile handset for repair or replacement at Delhi. It is also alleged the mobile handset was replaced on 5.1.2016 and it is also not properly working, it proves that the complainant has been supplied defective mobile handset. Subsequently also, no response was received from opposite parties. Thereafter the complainant moved a letter to Micromax Care and requested it to give him new Yureka mobile handset within 7 days i.e. 23.2.2015 claiming replacement of the mobile handset within 7 days or refund him the price of his mobile handset i.e. Rs.8999/-, but to no effect. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and has prayed for Rs.10,000/- on account of deficiency in service and claimed refund of price of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.8999/-. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it. Opposite party No.1 appeared through its counsel, but it failed to file written version within the stipulated period. As such, the matter was posted for evidence of the complainant. Parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit dated 26.5.2016, (Ex.C1); photocopy of order, (Ex.C2); photocopy of invoice, (Ex.C3); photocopies of letters, (Ex.C4, Ex.C5 and Ex.C10); photocopies of job sheet, (Ex.C6 and Ex.C7); photocopies of e-mails, (Ex.C8 and Ex.C9) and closed the evidence. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sikander Verma dated 4.10.2016, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopy of dispatch information, (Ex.OP1/2) and closed the evidence. It is relevant to mention that the complainant has also suffered statement wherein he has admitted that during the pendency of the complaint, he has received the replaced mobile handset from opposite party No.2 vide letter dated 27.2.2016, but without battery. Although, no written version was filed by opposite party No.1, but in its affidavit, (Ex.OP1/1), it is alleged that the complaint is abuse of process of law. However, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile handset on 12.3.2015 and deposited the same with opposite party No.1 on 27.11.2015 after using the mobile handset for more than 8 months. It was duly repaired and delivered to the complainant directly by the company. Thereafter on 29.1.2016, the complainant deposited his mobile handset with opposite party No.1 and same was delivered to him on 28.2.2016. The battery is with opposite party No.1. The complainant can collect the battery after giving the original job sheet to opposite party No.1. Complainant was several times asked to collect the battery, but he did not turn up. All other averments of the complainant are denied. It is also pleaded that the limited warranty document is part of user manual and inserted in every package of phone. Opposite party No.1 relies upon the same. It clearly provides that the mobile handset will be repaired free of charges, if it covered under warranty and replacement is also limited only to those cases where repair is not possible. After controverting all the averments, opposite party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint. We have heard the complainant and opposite party No.1 and gone through the file carefully. The complainant has submitted that although, during the pendency of this complaint, opposite party No.1 has replaced the mobile handset in question with new one, but the complaint cannot be held infructuous only for this reason. The deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties stands proved from the evidence placed on record and from the fact that after filing of this complaint, opposite parties have replaced the mobile handset that too without battery. It is also submitted by the complainant that the material facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that the complainant reported the problem in his mobile handset and handed over the same to opposite party No.1, which is authorized service centre of opposite party No.2. The mobile handset was not replaced till filing of this complaint. The letter dated 27.2.2016 of opposite parties also proves that they have not replaced the battery (A.C.C). Opposite party No.1 received the mobile handset from the complainant alongwith battery. Opposite party No.1 has admitted that the mobile handset has not been supplied to the complainant with the battery. Of-course, opposite party No.1 has pleaded that it time and again asked the complainant to collect the battery, but there is no evidence to prove this fact. Moreover opposite party No.1 has also offered battery of 2230 mah whereas the battery for this mobile handset is of 2500 mah. Opposite parties are required to supply the battery, which is to be provided with the replaced mobile handset. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has submitted that it has been unnecessarily dragged into litigation. Of-course, the complainant deposited his mobile handset with opposite party No.1, but it has forwarded the same to the company. Only company is liable to replace the mobile handset. The complainant himself has produced on record copy of letter dated 27.2.2016. Opposite party No.1 has also produced dispatch order, (Ex.OP1/2), which proves that the complainant has been supplied another mobile handset vide letter dated 27.2.2016. The battery of the complainant was retained by opposite party No.1 and it is ready to return him the battery, which is of 2230 mah. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. Undisputed facts are that the complainant has purchased the mobile handset, manufactured by opposite party No.2. He reported the faults, which were removed from time to time. It is the case of the complainant that on 29.1.2016, he has deposited the mobile handset with opposite party No.1 due to some faults and same was not replaced by opposite party No.2 till filing of this complaint. Of-course, opposite party No.2 has replaced the mobile handset vide letter dated 27.2.2016, but as per this letter also, it is without battery (A.C.C). The complainant has also produced on record technical details of the replaced mobile handset of opposite party No.2. As per this details, the battery power rating is 2500 mah and not of 2230 mah. Therefore, opposite parties were also to provide battery of power rating of 2500 mah and not of 2230 mah. These facts also show deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 is authorized service centre of opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 is manufacturer of the mobile handset. Of-course, the complaint is against opposite party No.2 through its Director Sumeet Kumar, but no evidence is brought on record to prove that Sumeet Kumar is responsible to resolve the issue of the complainant. Therefore, Sumeet Kumar, is not personaly responsible. However, manufacturing company i.e. YU Televentures Private Limited (Opposite party No.2) is held responsible for this deficiency. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties as made clear in preceding paragraph. Opposite parties are directed to provide the battery power rating of 2500 mah to the complainant. The compliance of this order be made jointly and severally by opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 10-11-2016 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
