BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.134 of 2015

Date of Instt. 30.03.2015

Date of Decision :06.06.2016

Mrs.Madhu Aggarwal wife of Late Shri Kamal Aggarwal, Prop. M/s Raja Ram & Sons, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Mobile House, H.O. Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd., Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar through its Directors/ Principal Officer.

2. Logic Computers, Over SBI ATM, Near Bank of India, Jaswant Nagar, Garha Road, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partners/Manager.

3. Blackberry India Pvt Ltd., through its Directors/Principal Officer.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Atul Malhotra Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Sanjeev Kumar Adv., counsel for OP No.2.

Sh.NPS Thind Adv., counsel for the OP No.3.

Opposite party No.1 exaprte.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties(herein called as OP) on the averments that complainant purchased a Blackberry mobile phone from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 3.4.2014 for a sum of Rs.17,990/-. Complainant submitted that soon after its purchase, the mobile set became defective and the complainant through her employee Sahil approached OP No.2 service centre of OP No.3 many times but the said mobile set could not be repaired and not made fully functional. The service job sheets in this regard are dated 24.6.2014 and dated 17.7.2014. OP No.2 informed the complainant that it would take 10 to 15 days for the repair of the said mobile set but the OPs failed to set right the said mobile handset and till date the said mobile set is in possession of OPs who have failed to set right the said mobile hand set. Complainant also served a registered legal notice dated 15.8.2014 but OPs failed to set right the mobile phone nor returned the same to the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to refund the price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.17,990/- alongwith interest. She has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OPs No.2 & 3 appeared through counsel and filed written replies. In its written reply OP No.2 pleaded that the mobile phone has already been received by Sahil employee of the complainant after it was fully repaired by OP No.2 against receipt. The OP No.2 have provided proper service to the complainant whenever complainant approached the OP with any defect in the mobile set and the same was rectified and the handset was handed over to Sahil employee of the complainant.

3. In its separate written reply, OP No.3 pleaded that complainant could not prove any manufacturing defect in the product i.e. mobile handset. The complainant approached the OP for the first time on 7.5.2014 claiming some minor issues. The mobile set in question was inspected and software thereof was duly upgraded and was handed over to the complainant in perfect working condition on the next date i.e. 8.5.2014 though the expected date of delivery in the job sheet mentioned as 22.7.2014. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP for the last time on 17.7.2014 and the authorized service centre of OP arranged swapped mobile set for the complainant which was ready for collection but the complainant did not turn-up to collect the same. The complainant was contacted several times on mobile but the complainant deliberately ignored the calls of the OP and issued false legal notice dated 15.8.2015. The OP No.3 admitted that the handset of the complainant is still lying at the authorized service centre i.e. OP No.2 and is ready for collection but the complainant instead of procuring the same has filed present complaint just to harass the OP. OP is ready to deposit the handset in the Forum and to demonstrate the perfect functioning thereof. The OP provided services as required under the term of limited warranty to the complainant.

4. Notice of this complaint was given to the OP No.1 but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

5. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and evidence of the complainant was closed by order.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP2/A alongwith copy of document Ex.OP2A/1 and closed evidence. Further learned counsel for the OP No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and evidence of the OP No.3 was closed by order.

7. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

8 From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased a Blackberry mobile phone from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 3.4.2014 Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.17,990/-. Complainant submitted that soon after its purchase, the mobile set became defective and the complainant through her employee Sahil approached OP No.2 service centre of OP No.3 many times but the said mobile set could not be repaired and not made fully functional. The service job sheets in this regard are dated 24.6.2014 Ex.C2 and dated 17.7.2014 Ex.C3. OP No.2 informed the complainant that it would take 10 to 15 days for the repair of the said mobile set but the OPs failed to set right the said mobile handset and till date the said mobile set is in possession of OPs who have failed to set right the said mobile hand set. Complainant also served a registered legal notice dated 15.8.2014 Ex.C4, postal receipts of which are Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 but OPs failed to set right the mobile phone nor returned the same to the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

9. Whereas the case of the OP No.2 is that the mobile phone has already been received by Sahil, employee of the complainant after it was fully repaired by OP No.2 against receipt. The OP No.2 have provided proper service to the complainant whenever complainant approached the OP with any defect in the mobile set and the same was rectified and the handset was handed over to Sahil employee of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.2 qua the complainant.

10. Whereas the case of the OP No.3 is that complainant could not prove any manufacturing defect in the product i.e. mobile handset. The complainant approached the OP for the first time on 7.5.2014 claiming some minor issues. The mobile set in question was inspected and software thereof was duly upgraded and was handed over to the complainant in perfect working condition on the next date i.e. 8.5.2014 though the expected date of delivery in the job sheet mentioned as 22.7.2014. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP for the last time on 17.7.2014 and the authorized service centre of OP arranged swapped mobile set for the complainant which was ready for collection but the complainant did not turn-up to collect the same. The complainant was contacted several times on mobile but the complainant deliberately ignored the calls of the OP and issued false a legal notice dated 15.8.2015Ex.C4. The OP No.3 admitted that the handset of the complainant is still lying at the authorized service centre i.e. OP No.2 and is ready for collection but the complainant instead of procuring the same has filed present complaint just to harass the OP. OP is ready to deposit the handset in the Forum and to demonstrate the perfect functioning thereof. The OP provided services as required under the term of limited warranty to the complainant. Learned counsel for the OP No.3 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.2 qua the complainant.

11. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant purchased a Blackberry mobile set from OP No.1 vide invoice Ex.C1 dated 3.4.2014 for a sum of Rs.17,990/- with warranty of one year. The said mobile set became defective and complainant approached OP No.2 authorized service centre through her employee, Sahil on 24.6.2014 vide job sheet Ex.C2. OP No.2 gave remarks on this job sheet Ex.C2 “Handset not powering on, so need to send to the company Blackberry. Customer visited at service centre second time” which proves that mobile set has major defect. The OP repaired the mobile set and handed over the same to the complainant but again the same problem occurred and again on 17.7.2014 complainant through her employee Sahil approached OP No.2 on 17.7.2014 vide job sheet Ex.C3 but the OP No.2 this time could not repair the mobile set of the complainant nor returned the same to the complainant. No doubt, the OP NO.2 vide their affidavit Ex.OP2/A has given statement that Sahil employee of the complainant had received the mobile set on 27.11.2014 and in this regard they produced photocopy of register Ex.OP2A/1. Whereas Sahil has given affidavit Ex.CB in this regard that he never received back the mobile set after 17.7.2014 from OP No.2. The affidavit given by OP No.2 Ex.OP2/A is also not correct as the OP No.3 in their written version as well as in their affidavit Ex.RW1/A have admitted that the mobile set is still lying with the authorized service centre of OP No.3 i.e. OP No.2 but the complainant did not turn-up to take the mobile set. OPs No.2 & 3 also failed to produce the mobile set in the Forum to prove their version that mobile set after repair is fully functional, rather this falsify affidavit of OP No.2 Ex.OP2/A. So, it stands fully proved on record that the mobile set of the complainant is still lying with OP No.2 and OP No.2 failed to repair the same and it stands fully proved on record that mobile set of the complainant is not repairable. Resultantly, OPs No.2 & 3 are liable to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one.

12. Consequently, we partly allow the complaint with cost and OPs No.2 & 3 are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same make and model or in the alternative to refund the price of the mobile set to the complainant i.e. Rs.17,990/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which OPs No.2 & 3 shall be liable to pay interest @Rs.9/- % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. The OPs No.2 & 3 are also directed to pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

06.06.2016 Member President