Punjab

Moga

CC/16/122

Sanjeev Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mohindra Mobile World - Opp.Party(s)

In person

07 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                                                                      CC No. 122 of 2016

                                                                                      Instituted on: 22.07.2016

                                                                                      Decided on: 07.09.2016

 

Sanjeev Kumar, aged about 39 years, son of Sh. Prem Parkash Dhanda, resident of House No.820, Ward No.5, Tangian Wali Gali, Basti Gobindgarh Moga.

 

                                                                          ……… Complainant

Versus

1.       Mohindera Mobile World, near Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Court Road, Moga.

 

2.       Apps Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Main Bazar, Opposite Town Hall, Court Road, Moga.

 

3.       Rashpal Telecom, 6 Red Cross Market, Court Road, Moga. 

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President.

                   Smt. Vinod Bala, Member.

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member.

 

Present:       Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, complainant in person.

                   Opposite party nos.1 to 3 ex-parte.

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against Mohindera Mobile World, near Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Court Road, Moga and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to replace the mobile set make HTC-desire 828 IMEI no.352532070862392 colour pearl white purchased from opposite party no.1 or to refund the amount of Rs.21,100/- the price of the abovesaid mobile hand set. Further opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation, damages, mental tension and deficient services to the complainant or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper be also granted to the complainant.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that opposite party no.1 is carrying on its business under the name and style of M/s Mohindera Mobile World, near Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Court Road, Moga; opposite party no.3 is the authorized service centre; opposite party no.2 is the insurer of the abovesaid mobile set. The complainant has purchased one mobile set make HTC-desire 828 IMEI no.352532070862392 colour pearl white on 26.01.2016 worth Rs.21,100/- from the opposite party no.1. At the time of delivery, the opposite party no.1 has given guarantee for one year against any manufacturing defect. The complainant has insured the said set with opposite party no.2 vide insurance Sr. No.PLAPINUM-20K-6569050. The said set fell down on the ground and thus the said mobile set stopped its functioning. The complainant lodged the complaint vide no.2004163036859. Since the time of purchase uptil now the said set is not working properly. The complainant went to opposite party no.1 and lodged the complaint. The complainant was told to contact opposite party no.3. Accordingly the complainant visited to opposite party no.3, who kept the said mobile set with it and after some days it was returned. They have charged Rs.230/-. The complainant has sent requests to the concerned person, but to no effect. The mobile hand set in question is not working properly since its falling. The complainant approached the office of opposite parties a number of times and requested them to replace the said mobile hand set as there is some technical defect in the said mobile hand set. But the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and refused to replace the same without any rhyme or reason. The service rendered by the opposite is deficient one and the complainant has been harassed unnecessarily. Due to the acts of the opposite parties, the complainant has to suffer loss financially, socially and economically. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, Sh. Vinod Kumar, Proprietor of opposite party no.1 appeared in person and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering opposite party, thus is liable to be dismissed; that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed, as the grievances of complainant have already been redressed by the answering opposite party; that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed, as the same has been filed on false and frivolous fact. On merits, it is submitted the complainant approached the answering opposite party with the complaint that his mobile hand set Model HTC Desire 828 Dual SIM having IMEI no.352532070862392 sold by answering opposite party to him has been fallen and is not working. As the said set was under warranty and was insured with opposite party no.2, the same being totally damaged was changed by the answering opposite party, through opposite party no.2 with new mobile set having IMEI no.352532070912155. Now the complainant is having new mobile set with new IMEI number, but he has filed the present complaint by mentioning the IMEI number of previous totally damaged mobile set just to harass and get compensation by distorting the facts before this Forum. Otherwise, the mobile set of the complainant has already been changed with new one vide Discharge Voucher dated 05.05.2016 which has been duly signed by the complainant. The detailed reply has already been given above which may please be read as part and parcel of reply to this para. The all other allegations mentioned in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.

                   It is pertinent to mention here that after filing written reply, none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1. As such, opposite party no.1 was proceeded against ex-parte.

4.                Despite due service of notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party nos.2 & 3. As such, opposite party nos.2 & 3 were proceeded against ex-parte.
5.                In ex-parte evidence, complainant Sanjeev Kumar tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 and copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence. 

6.                We have heard the complainant in person ex-parte and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

7.                Complainant argued that he purchased a mobile phone from opposite party no.1 worth Rs.21,100/- on 26.01.2016 against duly issued bill, copy of which is Ex.C-3. At the time of sale of mobile, opposite party no.1 gave one year warranty against any manufacturing defect. The complainant got his mobile phone insured with opposite party no.2 against any type of damage or loss to the phone. The mobile phone of the complainant fell down on ground and stops functioning. Since the purchase uptil now the said set is not working properly. He lodged the complaint with opposite party no.1, who told to contact with opposite party no.3. The opposite party no.3 kept the said mobile set with him and returned it after some time without removing defects. The complainant requested the concerned person, but to no effect. The said mobile phone is not working properly. He approached the office of opposite parties many time and requested them to replace the handset as there is certain technical defects in the mobile phone, but they refused to replace the same without any rhyme or reason. The services rendered by the opposite parties are deficient one. The opposite parties may be directed to replace the mobile phone of the complainant and also to pay compensation.

8.                On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared in this Forum and filed his written reply, but later on he did not appear before the Forum and proceeded against ex-parte. Opposite party no.2 & 3 never appeared before this Forum despite notice. So, in the interest of justice written reply filed by opposite party no.1 is taken as arguments on behalf of opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 submitted that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed as the grievance of the complainant has already redressed by the opposite parties. He admitted that the alleged mobile phone was sold by him, but no such guarantee as alleged by complainant is given by them, rather the manufacturing company provided one year warranty regarding manufacturing defect to the customers. They admitted that the complainant approached to them with the complaint that his mobile phone has been fallen and is not working. As the said set was under warranty and was insured with opposite party no.2, the same being totally damaged was changed by the opposite party no.1, through opposite party no.2 with new mobile phone having IMEI no.352532070912155. Now the complainant is using the new mobile phone with new IMEI number. He filed the present complaint by mentioning IMEI number of previous damaged mobile phone just to harass and to get monetary benefits from opposite parties. Otherwise mobile set of the complainant has already been changed with new one and the discharged voucher dated 05.05.2016 duly executed by complainant to this effect and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

9.                We have gone through the file, evidence and arguments lead by complainant. The case of the complainant is that he purchased mobile hand set from opposite party no.1, which was insured with opposite party no.2. During the warranty and insurance period, the said mobile phone fell on the ground and stopped working. The complainant contacted to opposite parties and requested them to repair his mobile hand set under warranty any policy condition, but they refused to do so. On the other hand, opposite party no.1 in his written reply submitted that on the complaint of the complainant his mobile phone was duly replaced with new one of the same model having new IMEI number and complainant duly executed a discharge voucher to this effect in favour of them. Now the complainant has filed the present false and frivolous complaint against them. During the course of arguments, the complainant admitted that opposite parties replaced his mobile phone with new one of same model and he executed discharge voucher to this effect in favour of opposite parties, the copy of the discharge voucher dated 05.05.2016 is on the file as Ex.C-9, which bears the signatures of the complainant. Now the only plea of the complainant is that the said set given to him in replacement is not of same configuration, which was of earlier phone. Further earlier phone of the complainant was of 32 GB of memory, however, the new phone was of 16 GB memory. As the complainant admitted that the opposite parties has already replaced his mobile phone with new mobile phone of same model and he duly executed a discharge voucher in favour of opposite parties as full and final satisfaction to opposite parties.

10.              We are of the considered opinion that now the complainant cannot re-agitate the matter by way of present complaint, when he has already received new mobile phone in exchange of his old mobile phone from the opposite parties by suppressing the facts from this Forum. We find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated: 07.09.2016.

 

 

                             (Bupinder Kaur)                     (Vinod Bala)               (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                   Member                                Member                      President