DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 613
Instituted on: 13.10.2016
Decided on: 08.03.2017
Inderjit aged about 37 years son of Sh. Ganesh Dass resident of Shekhupura Basti Sangrur Dr. Arora Wali Street.
…. Complainant
Versus
1. Micromax Informatics Ltd. Micromax House, Sector 18, Gorgaon, Pin-122015 through its CEO/ Managing Director.
2. M/s Kings Electronics authorized Service Centre, Thales Baag Opp. BSNL Park, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ Partner.
3. M/s Makhan Time and Music Centre, Dhuri Gate, Near Styam Opticals, Sangrur through its proprietor/ partner.
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Shri J.S.Sarao, Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTY No.1&2 : Shri Ashish Grover, Adv.
FOR OPP. PARTY NO.3 : Exparte.
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Inderjit, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a GSM mobile set bearing Model Micromax A104 from OP No.3 for an amount of Rs.5500/- vide bill no. 0696 dated 18.02.2015 under one year warranty. In the month of July 2016, the mobile set in question started giving problem of display as display touch screen was defective for which the complainant approached the OP No.2 who after repair returned the same. In the month of September 2015, display touch screen again stopped working for which the complainant again approached OP no.2 who issued job sheet on 22.09.2016 and kept the said mobile set with it saying that the touch screen is not available. Thereafter the complainant visited the OP no.2 time and again for receiving the mobile set but the OP no.2 did not give the same. In the month of September 2016 the OP no.2 flatly refused to give mobile set saying that the set had been lost and they have no record of the same. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed to refund the price amount of mobile set i.e. Rs.5500/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization or to arrange a new set of same model,
ii) OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment,
iii) OPs be directed to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OP no.3 did not appear and as such OP no.3 was proceeded exparte on 06.02.2016. The OPs No. 1 and 2 had appeared through Shri Ashish Grover Advocate and filed reply.
3. In reply filed by OPs No. 1 and 2, legal objections on the grounds of maintainability, suppression of material facts, cause of action and time barred have been taken up. On merits, purchase of mobile set in question under one year warranty subject to warranty terms and conditions is admitted. It is submitted that the complainant has approached the OP no.2 in the month of September 2015 for display touch problem of the mobile. The set was sent to the company for repair which was received after repair and called the complainant who took back rectified mobile set on 10.11.2015 and after that he never approached the OPs for anything. The complainant has taken the mobile set on 10.11.2015. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No. 1 and 2.
4. The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs No. 1 and 2 have tendered an affidavit Ex.OPs. 1&2/1 and closed evidence.
5. It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased a GSM mobile set bearing Model Micromax A104 from OP No.3 for an amount of Rs.5500/- vide bill no. 0696 dated 18.02.2015 under one year warranty.
6. Now, the main point of controversy in the present case is that whether the mobile set is still with the OPs or not? It is complainant's specific version in the complaint that in the month of September 2015, the display touch screen of the mobile set in question stopped working and the complainant approached OP no.2 who issued a job sheet dated 22.09.2015 after retaining the mobile set in question with it saying that the display touch screen is not available with it. Thereafter the complainant visited the OP no.2 time and again for receiving the mobile set but the same was not returned by the OP no.2 and told that the set has been lost. On the other hand, OPs have stated in their reply that Op no.2 received the mobile set from the company after repair and complainant was called for taking back the rectified mobile set and on 10.11.2015 the complainant took back the rectified set.
7. During the course of arguments, Shri Ashish Grover, Adv. learned counsel for the OPs no.1&2 has argued that it is a routine practice of the OPs that after necessary repair the mobile of the customer is given back after getting the original job sheet/ card issued to the customer and in the present case also the mobile set in question was given to the complainant on 10.11.2015 after getting back the original job sheet/card dated 22.09.2015. At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the mobile set was not given to the complainant and original job sheet/card is still with the complainant. For proper and just adjudication of the complaint, learned counsel for the complainant was directed to produce the original job sheet/card dated 22.09.2015 if the same is with him. Thereafter learned counsel for the complainant has produced on record copy of original bill dated 18.02.2015 for purchase of mobile phone in question from OP no.3 and also produced original copy of job sheet dated 22.09.2015 wherein it has not been mentioned anywhere that the mobile set in question was delivered to the complainant. From the perusal of the same it clearly shows that the mobile set in question is still with the OP no.2 and was not delivered to the complainant till today. It is strange that in support of his version the OP no.2 has also produced his affidavit wherein it has been specifically mentioned that "the deponent received the mobile set from the company after repair and called the complainant and the complainant took back the rectified mobile set on 10.11.2015 after that the complainant never approached the deponent for anything". The OP no.3 has not comforward to contest the case of the complainant rather it chosen to remain exparte.
8. In view of facts stated above, we find that the OPs not only deficient in service but also there is unfair trade practice on their part as OP no.2 has filed a wrong affidavit by suppressing the true facts about non-delivery of the mobile set in question to the complainant. The complainant has well proved his case by producing the original job sheet which shows that the mobile set in question was not delivered to him till today. As such, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs who are jointly and severally liable to refund the price amount of the mobile set in question i.e. Rs.5500/- to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.5000/- being mental pain agony harassment and litigation expenses. We further order the OPs no.1 and 2 to deposit an amount of Rs.5000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained in the District Consumer Forum, Sangrur as the OP no. 2 has filed a wrong affidavit by concealing the true facts from the Forum.
9. This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course. Announced
March 8, 2017
(Sarita Garg) (Sukhpal Singh Gill)
Member President
