BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
Complaint No. 05 of 2015
Date of Institution: 9.1.2015
Date of final order: 20.5.2016
Amit Jindal s/o Sh. Chajju Ram Jindal r/o Indra Bazar, Jind.
….Complainant.
Versus
Mobile Matrix, Bal Bhawan shop No.7 Gohana road, Jind through its Prop. Sh. Kapil.
Service Care Centre, REdingtian India Ltd. 95 Mount road, Chennai-600032.
…..Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.
Present: Sh. Ashwani Jindal Adv. for complainant.
Sh. Sanjiv Ghanghas Adv. for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte.
ORDER:
The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant had purchased Diser 500 Dual SIM Glossy mobile set for a sum of Rs.20,500/- vide invoice No.2339 dated 4.1.2014 from opposite party No.1, which is service care centre of opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 has given one year warranty of the above said mobile set. After one month of its purchase, the mobile set start giving trouble i.e touch screen was not working properly, there was problem in the speakers and some time the mobile set charging was stopped
Amit Jindal Vs. Mobile Matrix etc.
…2…
automatically. The complainant visited the shop of opposite party No.1 for removing the defects of the mobile set. The opposite party No.1 removed the defects of the mobile set. After some time the mobile set again started giving trouble. The mobile set was again handed over to opposite party No.1 for its replacement as there is a permanent mechanical defect. The opposite party No.1 assured that it will be either replaced or repaired as and when the company service persons will visit at Jind. The complainant visited the shop of opposite party No.1 several times for removing the defects of mobile set but the opposite party No.1 did not remove the defects of the mobile set. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to replace the mobile set with new one or to pay the cost of mobile i.e. Rs.20,500/- as well as to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 has appeared and filed the written statement stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint and the complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it is contended that the warranty if any is to be provided by the opposite party No.2 through service centre including customer care centre. The opposite party No.2 i.e. service centre can deal with complainant after its sale from the counter. The retailer is not responsible for any kind of
Amit Jindal Vs. Mobile Matrix etc.
…3…
guarantee/warranty as the same will be given by the opposite party No.2/company. The answering opposite party is only retailer for sale of product and is not service provider. Only service centre deal with the complainant regarding any kind of complaint or fault in the mobile set. All the other allegations have been denied by the answering opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for.
3. Opposite party No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 12.5.2015.
4. In evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, visiting card Ex. C-2 showing on back that the mobile set is still with opposite party No.2, copy of warranty statement Ex. C-3, copy of cash memo Ex. C-4, copy of postal receipt Ex. C-5 and photo copy of mobile set Ex. C-6 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 has produced the affidavit of Sh. Kapil Bhardwaj Ex. OP-1 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of both the parties and perused the record placed on file. The complainant has purchased the mobile phone against a sum of Rs.20,500/- on 4.1.2014 and the same has started giving trouble from the very beginning. The Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that after one month of purchase of mobile, the mobile is not working properly i.e touch screen was not working properly, there was problem in the speakers and some time the mobile set charging was stopped automatically.
Amit Jindal Vs. Mobile Matrix etc.
…4…
6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 has argued that opposite party No.1 is retailer and retailer is not responsible for any kind of guarantee/warranty and the same will be given by the Company. It is further alleged that company is responsible for removing the defects of the mobile set of the complainant and opposite party No.1 is not at any fault.
7. The Ld. counsel of the complainant has averred during arguments that the mobile phone was handed over to the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 has admitted the fact that the same has been sent to opposite party No.2 and it is still lying with opposite party No.2 and he has also given the hand written slip(Ex.C-2) to the complainant that mobile set has been hand over to opposite party No.2 since two months and same was given to him by complainant, at the time of argument counsel for opposite party No.2 admitted the above said facts regarding mobile was handed over by opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2 and thereby there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The Ld. counsel of opposite party No.1 has not been able to prove as to why the defects have not been removed to the satisfaction of the complainant.
8. We are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed in the interest of justice. The opposite parties are directed to refund the cost of the mobile phone amounting to Rs.20,500/- within 30 days from the date of receiving the certified copy of the order as
Amit Jindal Vs. Mobile Matrix etc.
…5…
the mobile set is already in the possession of opposite party No.2. In case of failure, the opposite parties will pay a simple interest @ 9%
p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 9.1.2015 till its realization. The opposite parties will also pay a sum of Rs.2200/- as
litigation expenses to the complainant. The order be complianced within the stipulated period. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 20.5.2016
President,
Member Member District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind
Amit Jindal Vs. Mobile Matrix etc.
Present: Sh. Ashwani Jindal Adv. for complainant.
Sh. Sanjiv Ghanghas Adv. for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte.
Arguments heard. To come up on 20.5.2016 for orders.
President,
Member Member DCDRF, Jind
17.5.2016
Present: Sh. Ashwani Jindal Adv. for complainant.
Sh. Sanjiv Ghanghas Adv. for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte.
Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
President,
Member Member DCDRF, Jind
20.5.2016
