Punjab

Sangrur

CC/398/2016

Krishan Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s City Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Rattan Kumar Verma

24 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                               

                                                Complaint No.  398

                                                Instituted on:    16.05.2016

                                                Decided on:       24.10.2016

 

Krishan Chand son of Kulwant Rai, resident of Magzine Street, Opposite House of Rattan Kumar Verma, Advocate, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                        Versus

1.             M/s. City Communication, Court Road Sangrur.

2              Lava Service Centre, Binny Telecom, Court Road, Opp. Post Office, Sangrur.

3.             Lava International Limited, A-56, Sector-64, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201301.

                                                …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Rattan Verma, Adv.

For OPs                    :               Shri  Sandeep Goyal, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Krishan Chand, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Lava Sparnex-1 mobile set bearing IMEI number 911426500646489 from OP number 1  for Rs.2200/- vide invoice number 8182 dated 14.01.2016 with one year warranty of the mobile set against any manufacturing defect or poor workmanship. It is further averred in the complaint that the complainant approached the OP number 2 on 4.2.2016 and apprised about the non working of the mobile set, who kept the mobile set with it, but did not return the same even after approaching the complainant to the OP number 2 a number of times.  It is further averred that the complainant even got served a legal notice upon the OPs, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund him the purchase price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.2200/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OPs, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question from OP number 1. It is further admitted that the complainant approached OP number 2 on 4.2.2016 and reported that there is some touch screen problem. The engineer of the OP checked the unit properly and resolved the problem and thereafter the complainant never approached the OP number 2 to get back the mobile set.  On merits, it is stated that the company provides one year warranty only, but it does not mean that the OPs are liable to replace the mobile set with a new one.  The other allegations levelled the complaint have been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 copy of job sheet, Ex.C-4 copy of notice, Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 postal receipts and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit along with annexure R-1 and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.               Ex.C-2 is the copy of the invoice dated 14.01.2016 issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.2200/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set and availed the services of the OP number 1 to 3, which has been manufactured by OP number 3.  It is further an admitted fact of the complainant that the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant became defective on 4.02.2016 with the problem ‘touch receiver not working’, as is evident from the copy of job card sheet Ex.C-3. Further it is an admitted fact of the Ops that the mobile set in question was having one year warranty against any of the defects.  Further the complainant has also produced his own sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 to support his averments in the complaint.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has also produced  his own affidavit Ex.OP1, wherein it has been stated that after receipt of the mobile set from the complainant, the complainant never came back to get back the mobile set and that there is no negligence on the part of the OPs. It is worth mentioning here that the Ops have not produced any expert report to show that the mobile set is working properly.  Moreover, the OPs have not produced any documentary evidence to show that they ever called the complainant to get back the delivery of the mobile set and even during the present proceedings the OP number 2 did not make any efforts/offer to deliver the mobile set in question to the complainant. There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they did not return the mobile set (if it was in working order) in question to the complainant  and kept the same with them without any reason.    In the circumstances, it is clear that the mobile set in question supplied to the complainant is defective one which is beyond repairs.     As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. 

 

6.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.2200/- being the cost of the mobile set along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 16.5.2016 till realisation.  The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2500/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, harassment  and litigation expenses.

 

7.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                October 24, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member