Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/565

Chamkaur Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Anmol Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Narinder Chhibba adv.

29 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 565 of 21.09.2015

Date of Decision            :   29.08.2016

 

Chamkaur Singh s/o Gurdial Singh, resident of H.No.28, Village Kamma, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana.

 

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.M/s Anmol Telecom, Chandla Market, Khanna-141401.

2.M/s Pee Kay Sales Corporation, G.T.Road, Near Lalheri Road Chowk, Khanna, District Ludhiana.

…Opposite parties

 

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

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.KARNAIL SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant                      :         Sh.Maninder Singh Gill, Advocate  

For OP1                         :         Sh.Jasbir Singh, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Ex-parte.

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complainant Sh.Chamkaur Singh filed complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) against Ops by claiming that he purchased a Micromax Mobile phone Canvas Gold A-300 having IMEI No.911338900832215 from OP1 vide invoice No.758 dated 4.12.2014. Since from the purchase, mobile phone was not working properly, due to which, same could not be used. Thereafter, complainant approached OPs time and again. OP1 asked the complainant to approach OP2, on which, he did so. OP2 received the mobile phone from the complainant and thereafter, despite    approach many times and assurances, mobile phone has not been returned and   nor the fault therein rectified. Complainant had been deprived from the use of the mobile phone inspite of spending a huge amount and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, prayer made for issuing directions to OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- i.e. Rs.16,000/-(price of the mobile phone) along with Rs.30,000/- as damages and Rs.4000/- as costs of litigation.

2.                OP1 appeared through counsel and filed the written statement for claiming that complaint against OP1 is not maintainable because there is no deficiency in service on his part and the complainant even has no locus standi. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the mobile phone in question from OP1. Each and every other averment of complaint denied by claiming that in case, there was any defect in the mobile phone, then OP2, being the service centre liable to rectify the defect within the warranty period. Rather, it is claimed that complainant himself approached OP2 for exchange or rectification of the faults in the mobile phone.

3.                OP2 is ex-parte in this case, due to passing of order dated 17.12.2015.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and thereafter, his counsel closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor of OP1 and then closed the evidence.

6.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. But oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

7.                Perusal of affidavit Ex.CA of complainant along with invoice/bill Ex.C1 and contents of written statement as well as affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Proprietor reveals that mobile phone in question was purchased by the complainant through invoice/bill Ex.C1 for consideration of Rs.16,000/- on 4.12.2014. On this bill Ex.C1 itself it is mentioned that responsibility of seller to cease immediately after the goods leaving the showroom because  warranty will be of company. Keeping in view of recording of this note on foot of Ex.C1, itself it is obvious that after sale of the mobile phone in question by OP1 to complainant, liability of rectification of defects only remained of the manufacturer or of the service centre. So, submission advanced by the counsel for the complainant has no force that OP1 also should be held liable due to non return of the mobile phone deposited with OP2.

8.                Terms and conditions of the contract to govern the case of the parties and nothing can be added or subtracted thereto as per settled legal preposition laid down in cases titled as Ind Swift Limited vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and others-IV(2012)CPJ-148(N.C.); Usha Sharma vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd.-I(2012)CPJ-448(N.C.); United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal-IV(2004)CPJ-15(S.C.); Deokar Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd.-I(2009)CPJ-6(S.C.) and New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs. Panchsheel Jewellers-I(2013)CPJ-38(N.C.). In view of this, as the contract of purchase was arrived at through invoice/bill Ex.C1 and as such, terms contained in Ex.C1 to prevail. In view of that liability of OP1 does not remain after sale of the mobile phone in question, particularly when through complaint Ex.C3, allegations of loss of mobile levelled against OP2, service centre, with whom the mobile phone in question was deposited on 19.01.2015. As loss of the mobile phone deposited with OP2 took place due to fault of OP2 and as such, certainly liability of paying the price of Rs.16,000/- to remain of OP2. As after depositing of the mobile phone by the complainant with OP2 through job sheet Ex.C2, it was the responsibility of OP2 to keep the mobile in safe custody and to return back the same after rectification of the defects and as such, keeping in view factum of non return of the deposited mobile phone with OP2, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP2 and not of OP1.

9.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed against OP2 in terms that Op2 will pay Rs.16,000/- (price of the lost mobile set in question) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) as compensation for mental harassment and sufferings to the complainant along with litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-  (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP2. Payment of these amounts be made by Op2 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Complaint against OP1 however is dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

10.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

          (Karnail Singh)                                  (G.K. Dhir)

                             Member                                              President                         Announced in Open Forum

Dated:29.08.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.

                                           

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.