Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/212/2013

Ram Mohan S/o Om Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mohan Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Parveen Shakkarwal

17 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                         Complaint No212 of 2013.

                                                                                         Date of institution: 14.03.2013.

                                                                                         Date of decision: 17.02.2016

Ram Mohan son of Shri Om Parkash resident of House No. 45D, Railway Colony, Jagadhri Workshop, Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                                         …Complainant.

 

                                                      Versus

 

1. Mohan Electronics, Opposite Giri Mandir Street, Workshop Road, Yamuna Nagar, through its Proprietor.   
2. Spice Mobility Limited Authorized Service Centre, Siddhi Telecom, Shop Room No.59-C, Yamuna Nagar. 
3. Spice Spice Mobility Limited 5 Global Knowledge Park 19A & 19B, Sector 125 NOIDA 201301 UP through its Manager Director.

                                                                                                          …Respondents.

                         

 

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG,  PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Parveen Shakkarwal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

               Respondent No.1 already ex-parte. 

               Sh. Rajan Bhatia, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2 &3.

                          

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Ram Mohan has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to. replace the mobile instrument of Spice MI-500 against new one immediately or to refund the price of Rs. 11500/- alongwith interest and further to pay compensation as well as cost of proceedings.   

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant purchased one Spice Mobile MI500 bearing IMEI No. 911239700046792 vide bill No. 4567 dated 22.11.2012 for a sum of Rs. 11500/- from the OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.3 and Op No.2 is the service centre of OP No.3. The aforesaid mobile set was dual SIM and complainant having only one SIM and subsequently the complainant purchased another SIM in the month of January 2013 and inserted it in the vacant second SIM Slot but the second SIM did not work and the hand set showed INSERT SIM whereas the SIM was inserted. The complainant went to the OP No.1 who told him to contact the service centre i.e. OP No.2. The complainant contacted the Op No.2 service centre and told about the problem, whereupon the complainant was told that his mobile hand set will be replaced and the hand set was received by OP No.2 against job card. The complainant was asked to come after 4-5 days for receiving the replaced mobile but the OP No.2 did not return the same and lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. On 23.1.2013, the complainant again went to OP No.2 who gave him same defective mobile and was told that it cannot be replaced, so, the complainant refused to receive the mobile and is lying with the OP No.2. As such, the complainant has suffered great mental agony, pain and torture at the hands of OPs which amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint. 

3.                     Upon notice OP No. 1 failed to appear despite service, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.7.2013. OPs No.2 & 3 appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law, not maintainable, no deficiency in service, and on merit it has been mentioned that Op No.1 is not an authorized retailer of answering OPs. It has been further mentioned that the complainant submitted his handset for repair on 3.1.2013 vide job sheet No. 07100209D10017 with Hanging Problem, which was satisfactorily repaired and handset was ready for delivery on 16.1.2013. Accordingly, an SMS was sent to the complainant on his registered mobile No. 09354156934. Copy of the job sheet is enclosed herewith. Since the handset was repaired and was in a fully working condition, replacement of the handset in lieu thereof cannot arise. All the allegations made by the complainant are denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and document such as Photo copy of Bill No. 4567 dated 22.11.2012 as Annexure C-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, Avinder Singh, service Engineer Siddhi, Telecom Op No.2 tendered in evidence his affidavit as Annexure RW/A and closed his evidence whereas counsel for the OP No.3 failed to tender any evidence and its evidence was closed by court order on 23.12.2015.

6.         We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file carefully and minutely.

7.                     From the perusal of Annexure C-1, which is copy of bill, it is evident that the complainant purchased the spice Mobile set vide Invoice No. 4567 dated 22.11.2012 for Rs. 11,500/- from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.3. Further, it is evident that the complainant has totally failed to file any documentary evidence that mobile in question was having any manufacturing defect regarding not working the second SIM of the mobile in question. However, it is admitted case of the OPs that the complainant handed over his mobile set in question on 03.01.2013 vide job sheet No. 07100209D10017 with the problem of hanging and the same was repaired and after that a SMS was sent to the complainant for collecting the same but the complainant failed to collect the mobile in question due to the reason best known to him but the OPs failed to file any documentary evidence, even the OPs failed to disclose the date/month in which SMS was sent to the complainant. Meaning thereby that complainant might have suffered some mental agony, harassment due to some problem in mobile to couple of days as the mobile set remained with the OPs and complainant could not enjoy the facilities.Every person invest in a product with motive to enjoy such like mobile in question and when it stopped working then very purpose of the product is defeated.  Further more as the complainant purchased mobile set on 22.11.2012 and lodged his complaint within a short span of 1 months 10 days with the OPs and filed, the present complaint within 3-4 months of the purchase and still further mobile set in question is lying with the OPs service Centre i.e. Op No.2 till today.  

8.                     After going through the above noted circumstances, it reveals that the complainant might have suffered some hardship which forced him to file the present complaint. It is also not disputed that the mobile in question was under the currency of warranty at the time of alleged defect and there is no reason to disbelieve or to discredit, aforesaid pleaded case of the complainant, which gets full support and corroboration, not only from his supporting affidavit Annexure CX, but also from the admission of job sheet No. 07100209D10017 dated 3.1.2013 of para No.4 of the written statement, which shows that the mobile hand set in question was taken by the service centre for repair and still is pending with them. It is, thus, very clear that a defective mobile hand set was sold to the complainant. The service Centre could not bring it in order, rather on the other hand, it was kept back and the mobile hand set was not returned to the complainant repaired or unrepaired despite his repeated visits. It is certainly gross deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

9.                     In view of the facts narrated above, we are of the confirmed view that OPs No.2 & 3 have failed to provide proper services to the complainant qua the mobile set in question and thus they are guilty of providing deficient services to the complainant. Hence, in these circumstances, we have no option except to allow the present complaint.

10.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs No.2 & 3 to replace the mobile set in question with the same model or with the higher configuration of the same price and further to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses. In case the OPs fails to provide same model of the same price then to refund the amount of Rs.11,500/- within a period of 30 days failing which the OPs No.2 & 3 are directed to pay interest at the rate of 7% per annum for the defaulting period. Further to pay the aforesaid compensation as well as litigation expenses.  Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court: 17.02.2016.

(ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

 PRESIDENT

                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                     MEMBER.