BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.479 of 2014
Date of institution: 22.07.2014
Date of Decision: 08.05.2015
Maghar Singh son of Gurmeet Singh resident of village Kaloli, Tehsil and District, SAS Nagar, Punjab.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Mobile Clinic, Main Road, Banur, Near Basanti Mata Mandir, Tehsil and District SAS Nagar through its Proprietor.
2. Jaina Marketing & Associates, D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi 110020 through its Manager.
3. Karbon Mobiles, D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase Ist, New Delhi 110020 through its Manager.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri A.B. Aggarwal, Member.
Present: Shri P.S. Sohal, counsel for the complainant.
Shri B.S. Multani, counsel for OP No.1
Shri N.S. Sidhu, counsel for OP Nos.2 and 3.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of following directions to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:
(a) replace the defective mobile.
(b) pay him Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency in service and physical harassment.
(c) pay him Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
The complainant’s case is that he purchase Karbon Mobile A12 from the OPs vide invoice dated 09.08.2013 Ex.C-1. The mobile phone was having warranty of one year. The mobile phone started giving problems in network in the month of June, 2014. The complainant made a complaint and OP No.1 asked the complainant to approach the service centre. The service centre took the mobile from the complainant for repair against receipt on 19.07.2014 and also demanded Rs.6,000/- if the complainant wants to get the mobile repaired. The complainant informed the concerned person that the phone is under guarantee but the person informed the complainant that they do not admit any guarantee and asked the complainant to go to the company. Thus, non repair of the mobile within warranty is an act of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
2. OP No.1 in the written statement has pleaded that he had sold the mobile phone to the complainant and gave warranty of one year. The company is responsible for repair of the mobile during guarantee period. The mobile was sealed in box of the company when sold to the complainant. The mobile is to be repaired by the company.
3. OP Nos.2 and 3 in their joint written statement have pleaded in the preliminary submissions that there was no manufacturing defect in the mobile hand set. The OPs have not received any notice/legal notice from the complainant. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant never approached the service centre of the OPs. The mobile phone was thoroughly checked by the complainant prior to its purchase. Denying any manufacturing defect in the mobile, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint against them.
4. Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1; copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-3.
5. Evidence of OP No.1 consists of affidavit of Sandeep Kumar, Ex.OP-1/1 only.
6. Evidence of OP Nos. 2 and 3 consists of affidavit of Ajay Kumar their authorized representative Ex.OP-2/1.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through their written arguments.
8 The purchase of the mobile hand set is not disputed by OP No.1. The issue of defects in hand set as alleged by the complainant is not disputed by the OP No.2 and 3. As per OP No.2 and 3 the complainant never approached the service centre and, therefore, there is no question of deficiency in service on their part. However, the stand of OP Nos.2 and 3 is totally devoid of merit as it is evident from Ex.C-2 i.e. the job card duly issued by OP No.2 that the hand set is in their possession since 01.07.2014 and till date the hand set has not been returned to the complainant. Retaining of mobile hand set from 01.07.2014 onward and not effecting any repairs or redressing the grievance of the complainant per se is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Nos.2 and 3. Thus, the act of the OPs No.2 and 3 is an act of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and the complaint deserves to be allowed.
9. During the course of proceedings, the OP Nos.2 and 3 have offered to replace the handset with a new set and if the same model is not available anymore then offered to replace a new handset of the same value. The complainant has agreed to the offer of OP Nos.2 and 3 as he has already prayed for replacement of the handset in the prayer clause of his complaint. This is a very fair offer of the OP Nos.2 and 3 and once accepted by the complainant his major grievance will be redressed. However, the offer of replacement per se cannot compensate the complainant for the mental physical agony and the financial loss he has suffered due to non availability of mobile hand set in his hand since 01.07.2014 till date and the complainant definitely deserves compensation on this account.
10. Since the OP Nos.2 and 3 have owned the liability to replace the mobile hand set, therefore, no relief against OP No.1 is granted and qua him the complaint is dismissed. Hence the complaint is hereby allowed against OP Nos.2 and with the following directions:
(a) to replace the mobile hand set with a new mobile hand set and if the same model is not being manufactured by the OP No.3 now, then replace it with the new hand set of the same value with a fresh warranty.
(b) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) to the complainant as compensation towards mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.
Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
May 08, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(A.B. Aggarwal)
Member
