BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 04 of 2016
Date of Institution: 1.1.2016
Date of Decision: 20.5.2016
Shri Shamsher Singh son of Sh. Kulwant Singh, resident of Village and Post Office Mira Kot Kalan Tehsil and District Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- Mobile Plaza, through its Proprietor, Hall Bazar, Amritsar
- M/s. A.A. Electronics, through its Proprietor/Partner, 106-B, Sunrise Plaza, Upstair Bakewell Bakery, Cooper Road, Amritsar
- Nokia India Now (Microsoft Corp) Sales Pvt.Ltd. S.P.Info.City Industrial Plot No. 243, Udyog Vihar, Phase I, Dundahera, Gurgaon
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh.Rajesh Bhatia,Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Sh.Deepinder Singh,Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Shamsher Singh,complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant purchased a mobile Nokia Lumia 1320 having its IMEI No. 35917905642248 from opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs. 18500/- vide invoice No. 10297 dated 27.10.2014. The mobile phone is product of Nokia now known as Microsoft. The mobile phone in dispute was sold with a guarantee/warranty of one year from the date of its purchase. As such the complainant falls under the definition of consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Since from the first day of its purchase, mobile phone was not working properly. The display and touch screen of the mobile handset was not working properly . It was also having charging problem and SIM was also not working in the said mobile phone properly. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 and requested it to rectify the said problems, but the opposite party told the complainant to approach opposite party No.2. As such the complainant approached opposite party No.2 alongwith mobile handset which was deposited with opposite party No.2 firstly on 1.12.2014. The mobile handset was repaired by them and it was handed over to the complainant. But the mobile phone did not work properly even thereafter. It was again handed over to opposite party No.2 for its repairs many times. The mobile handset was deposited with opposite party No.2 for its repairs on 16.10.2015, 14.11.2015 , 7.12.2015, 9.12.2015 and lastly on 17.12.12015. On 9.12.2015 it was told to the complainant by opposite party No.2 that the data cable of the said mobile phone is spoiled and as such they given a data cable of the said mobile phone to the complainant for a sum of Rs. 350/- against invoice No. 36793 . Thereafter the charger of the said mobile phone got spoiled and the complainant purchased the charger of the said mobile phone from opposite party No.2 on 18.12.2015 for a sum of Rs. 750/- against invoice No. 36883. As stated above, most of the time the said mobile remained in the custody of opposite party No.2 for its repair. The display of the said mobile was also changed by opposite party No.2 and since the said mobile phone most of the times remained in the custody of the opposite party for its repair purposes. As such the warranty of the mobile phone was automatically extended. Lastly the mobile phone was handed over to opposite party No.2 on 17.12.2015 for its repair of charging and overheating. The mobile handset was handed over to the complainant on the same day. The mobile hand set was under extended warranty and as such no amount was charged from the complainant by the opposite party for any kind of repair. The mobile handset is still not working properly. It is still having charging and overheating problem , net work problem and the SIM in the mobile phone is also not working properly. Job sheet dated 17.12.2015 bearing No. 170433527/151217/011 clearly shows that on that day the mobile phone of the complainant was under warranty. The complainant has sought for following reliefs vide instant complaint as under :-
(a) That the opposite parties may be ordered to replace the said defective mobile phone, model no. Nokia Numia 1320 with new one or in the alternative the cost of said mobile phone be ordered to be refunded to the complainant. The payments charged by the opposite party No.2 for the charger and data cable may also be ordered to be refunded to the complainant.
(b) Compensation alongwith cost of litigation to the tune of Rs. 20000/- may be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing joint written statement taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint and the complaint is an abuse of the process of law. The complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed by invoking section 26 of the Act. As the complainant has not filed any complaint within the warranty period and the allegations leveled in the present complaint are beyond the warranty period and without any evidence to substantiate the same and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the mobile handset was purchased by the complainant vide invoice dated 27.10.2014 from opposite party No.1. The matter of charging the complainant for the product issued is as per the company price and out of warranty purchase. It is denied that any extended warranty has been offered to the complainant. There is no deficiency or negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Rather the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint. The complainant is neither entitled to on the point of law nor on the facts of the case. The complaint is liable to be dismissed being without merits.
3. In his bid to prove the case Sh.Rajesh Bhatia,Adv. counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of service job sheet Ex.C-2, copy of bill dated 27.10.2014 Ex.C-3, copy of retail invoice dated 18.12.2015 Ex.C-4, copy of retail invoice dated 9.12.2015 Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Deepinder Singh,Adv.counsel for the opposite parties No.1,2 & 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Vimal Sareen ,Prop A.A.Electronics Ex.OP1,2,3/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties NO.1,2 & 3.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. At the very outset on 20.5.2016 Sh.Deepinder Singh,Advocate counsel for the opposite parties suffered a statement that opposite parties are ready to repair the mobile set in question belonging to the complainant as a goodwill gesture. At this stage, counsel for the complainant insisted that the complainant may be awarded sufficient compensation as well as cost of litigation besides that the opposite parties may be directed to repair the mobile handset to his satisfaction without charging any amount from him.\
7. From the appreciation of the evidence on record as well as goodwill gesture offer made by the counsel for the opposite parties, it is in the fitness of the case if the opposite parties are directed to repair the mobile handset of the complainant to his satisfaction free of cost. However, in our considered opinion, no compensation or cost of litigation is required to be allowed to the complainant because substantive relief of repair without cost is available to him. Consumer Foras are there for granting this substantive relief and those are not there to enrich one party at the cost of the other.
8. Consequently instant complaint succeeds to the extent that the opposite parties are directed to repair the mobile handset of the complainant to his satisfaction without charging any amount from him. The opposite parties are given one month’s time to repair the mobile handset in dispute and the complainant is directed to deposit the mobile handset in dispute within a week’s time from the date of receipt of copy of the order . while the opposite parties are ordered to do the needful within a further period of one month. However, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation or cost of the complaint. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 20.05.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
