DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.159 of 15
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 03-06.2015
DATE OF ORDER: 18-11-2016
Mahesh Kumar son of Sh. Mahabir Parsad, aged about 46 years, resident of village Leghan Hetwan, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- M/s Divya Communications, Meham Gate, Bhiwani through its Proprietor/Authorized Person.
- M/s Saini Mobile Point, 1st Floor, Ghanshyam Market, Naya Bazar Road, Near Goyal Nurshing Home, Bhiwani through its Proprietor/Authorized Person.
- M/s Spice Mobility Limited, S. Global Knowledge Park, 19-A & 19-B, Sector-125, Noida-201301 (U.P. India through its M.D./Authorized Person.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.
Mrs. Sudesh, Member.
Present:- Sh. Ganesh Bansal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. M.S. Parmar, Advocate for OP no. 3.
Ops no. 1 & 2 exparte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that he had purchased mobile set of ‘Spice’ from OP no. 1, vide bill no. 561, dated 14.04.2015 for amounting of Rs. 6,000/- with one year warranty. It is alleged that in the month of March 2015, the handset starting problem in proper functioning and he visited to the shop of OP no. 1, who sent the complainant on the service centre of company. It is alleged that after making querry regarding the complaint of the complainant, OP no. 2 deposited the mobile set with him and assured the complainant that his mobile set would be returned soon to him after removing the problem of the same. It is alleged that thereafter on 21.03.2015 OP no. 3 sent a message to the complainant that his mobile is available at service centre at OP no. 2 and collect the same within next 3 day, upon which complainant approached the OP no. 2 & collect the mobile set but after 1 day of its receiving, it again started to create problems. It is alleged that the complainant approached to the OP no. 2 on 25.03.2015, who again deposited the mobile set of the complainant with him and assured the complainant that his set would be returned to him, after removing its problem & on dated 27.03.2015 a message was also sent in this regard by the OP no. 3 to the complainant that his mobile set is received at the service centre of the company. It is alleged that a long period was lapsed and complainant approached many time to OP no. 2 to return his mobile set. It is alleged that the complainant received a message on 07.05.2015 of OP no. 3 that his mobile set is available at service centre with OP no. 2 and collect the same within 3 days, upon which on dated 09.05.2015, the complainant alongwith his nephew visited at the service centre for collecting the same but his mobile set was not available there & OP no. 2 tried to handover another old mobile set to complainant, by saying that problems of mobile set could not be removed. The complainant made several requested to return his own mobile set but all in vain. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Ops he has to suffer mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment. Hence the complainant was deprived of use of the Hand Set and suffered a loss. Now the complainant has claimed the new mobile alongwith interest and costs by way of filing present complaint.
2. OP no. 1 & 2 have failed to come present. Hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.10.2015.
3. Opposite party no. 3 on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the answering respondent possesses a goodwill and have an established market and have assumed a good reputation over the years in respect of the business, which they carry out. It is submitted that the complainant was informed accordingly to collect his repaired handset but the complainant refused to collect it. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-3 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. In reply thereto, the counsel for OP no. 3 has tendered into evidence document Annexure R-1.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the counsel for the complainant and counsel for the OP no. 3.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant handed over the mobile handset in question to OP no. 2 for repair. After the receipt of the message the complainant approached the OP no. 2 to collect the mobile handset and after repeated visits the OP no. 2 handed over another mobile handset to the complainant on the ground that the mobile handset of the complainant cannot be repaired.
8. The counsel for OP no. 3 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that allegation made by the complainant are false and baseless. The complainant visited the OP no. 2 for the complaint of camera and battery problem in the mobile handset and the complainant was informed to collect the mobile handset in question but the complainant intentionally did not approached the OP no. 2 to take the delivery of his mobile handset. The mobile handset of the complainant has been fully repaired and is in working condition.
9. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the material on record. The mobile handset in question was purchased by the complainant on 14.04.2014 for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- vide bill Annexure C-1. The job sheet dated 25.03.2015 Annexure C-2 issued by OP no. 2 to the complainant. As per the contention of the complainant the mobile handset in question was purchased in April 2014 and the mobile handset started giving problem in the month of March 2015. It means that the mobile handset worked properly for about 11 months. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to deliver the mobile handset of the complainant fully repaired in working condition. The Ops are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1200/- to the complainant as lumpsum compensation. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:18-11-2016.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta) (Sudesh)
Member Member
