DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 498 of 23.12.2016
Decided on: 7.9.2017
Ajay Singh, age 38, H.No.11 A, Khalsa College Colony, Patiala (Mobile No.9417337396)
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Microsoft corporation ( India) Private Limited, 807, New Delhi House, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001, India.
2. Mobile Tech., Ranjit Plaza, Near Hotel Jeevan Plaza, Bhupindra Road, Phatak 22, Patiala, Punjab-147001, through its Manager.
3. New Mobile Hut, SCO 42,Leela Bhawan, Near Canara Bank, Patiala, Punjab-147001, through its Proprietor.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Ms.Palak Patel, authorized representative
of the complainant.
Opposite parties No.1&3 ex-parte.
Sh.Mayank Malhotra, Adv. counsel for Op No.2.
ORDER
SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER
- The complainant purchased one mobile phone make Microsoft Lumia 640 XL LTE Dual Sim from Op no.3 vide bill No.32132 dated 19.1.2016 for a sum of Rs.17000/-. It is averred that in the month of August,2016, the said mobile phone stopped working and the complainant got the mobile phone deposited with OP no.2 on 17.8.2016 vide job sheet No.178433527/160817/002.After one month OP gave a new mobile phone to the complainant. Within a week, the new mobile phone also started giving problem and the wife of the complainant got the mobile phone deposited with Op no.2 on 22.9.2016 vide job sheet No.178433527/160926/001 and the OP assured the complainant that they will send a brand new mobile phone to the complainant within 15-20 days. For morethan three months, the complainant did not receive any satisfactory response from the OPs. Thereafter, OP no.1 said that, it was ready to give the complainant a lower version of the mobile phone which the complainant refused to accept. The complainant’s wife had been talking to the customer care representative of OPs No.1&2 almost every other day and the OPs kept on lingering on the matter. She underwent a lot of mental agony as well as harassment as she was trying to manage without a phone for more than three months. Such an act of the OPs amounted to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986.
- On notice, OPs No.1&3 failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against ex-parte. Whereas OP no.2 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. It is an admitted fact that the mobile phone is lying with OP no.2. The only plea taken by Op no.2 is that it offered a new seal packed handset of the mobile, make Microsoft Lumia 640XL LTE, which the complainant refused to accept and the complainant was adamant to get back the money as he had already purchased a new handset. As such OP no.2 cannot be said to be deficient in service. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, the representative of the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant along with documents Exs.C1 to C4 and closed the evidence.
- The representative of OP no.2 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA his duly sworn affidavit and closed the evidence
- We have heard the representative of the complainant, ld.counsel for OP no.2, and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased one mobile phone from OP no.1 on 19.1.2016 for a sum of Rs.17000/- In the month of August,2016, the said mobile phone stopped working and the complainant got the mobile phone deposited with OP no.2 vide job sheet i.e. Ex.C2 dated 17.8.2016.OP provided a new handset to the complainant after one month. Within a week, the new mobile phone also started giving problem and the complainant got the same deposited with OP no.2 on 22.9.2016 but the OP no.2 issued job sheet i.e. Ex.C3 dated 26.9.2016.Since 26.9.2016, the mobile phone in question has been lying with OP no.2.The only plea taken by OP no.2 in its reply as well as at the time of oral arguments is that it had offered a brand new handset of the mobile phone to the complainant which he refused to accept whereas the complainant has submitted that OP no.2 offered mobile phone of a lower version which lacked important features, therefore, he refused to accept the same. As such, the complainant underwent a lot of harassment and mental agony at the hands of the OPs. These days it is very difficult to manage without a mobile phone and the complainant was forced to buy a new mobile phone for his wife. The mobile phone has been lying with the OP no.2 for the last 11 months, which amounted to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant against OPs no.1&2 and the same is dismissed against OP no.3 as it is merely a seller of the product. OPs no.1&2 are directed to refund an amount of Rs.17000/- , the same being the price of the mobile phone to the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.4000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant and a sum of Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs No.1&2 within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED: 7.9.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
