Order by
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that the younger brother of the complainant sent mobile phone S-8, worth Rs.40,000/- from Australia to the complainant and due to some defect in touch of the said mobile, the complainant handed over the same to Opposite Party for its repair. Further alleges that the Opposite Party demanded Rs.4,500/- for repairing the said mobile set and promised the complainant to collect the same on 02.08.2019. Further alleges that on 02.08.2019 the complainant went to the shop of Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party raised the demand of Rs.7,000/- from the complainant. Not only this, at that time, the complainant also found that there were so many scratches on the mobile set in question. When, the complainant raised the objection in this regard, then the Opposite Party insulted the complainant publically and refused to return the mobile set in question. Thereafter, the complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Party to return the mobile set, but the Opposite Party refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant and hence there is deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Party. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- To return the mobile Set S-8 to the complainant after its repair which the Opposite Party has retained without any rhyme or reason and also direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing her mental tension and harassment and
- Any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper may be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Said mobile set in question has been repaired and Opposite Party has to charge Rs.4,500/- as repair charges. When the Opposite Party asked the complainant to pay Rs.4,500/- and take the mobile set in question, then the complainant refused. Further alleges that the complainant had handed over the mobile set in a damaged condition for repair and the same was repaired. There were already scratches on the said mobile, but false allegations have been made in the complaint. The mobile set in question is quite OK and the complainant can receive the same at any time after making the payment of Rs.4,500/- being repair charges of the said mobile set. On merits, the Opposite Party took almost same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In order to prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also tendered into evidence the copy of visiting car Ex.C2 and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Harish Kumar son of Ram Dev Grover Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the evidence produced on record.
6. The Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that his younger brother sent him mobile phone S-8, worth Rs.40,000/- from Australia and due to some defect in touch of the said mobile, the complainant handed over the same to Opposite Party for its repair. Further contended that the Opposite Party has raised the demand of Rs.4,500/- for repairing the said mobile set and promised the complainant to collect the same on 02.08.2019. The case of the complainant is that on 02.08.2019 he went to the shop of Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party raised the demand of Rs.7,000/- from him. Not only this, at that time, the complainant also found that there were so many scratches on the mobile set in question. When, the complainant raised the objection in this regard, then the Opposite Party insulted the complainant publically and refused to return the mobile set in question. Thereafter, the complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Party to return the mobile set, but the Opposite Party refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant and hence there is deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Party.
7. On the other hand, the representative of the Opposite Party repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that mobile set in question has been repaired and Opposite Party has to charge Rs.4500/- as repair charges. When the Opposite Party asked the complainant to pay Rs.4,500/- and take the mobile set in question, then the complainant refused. Moreover, the Opposite Party never raised the demand of Rs.7,000/- from the complainant on account of repair charges of the mobile set in question Further contended that the complainant had handed over the mobile set in a damaged condition for repair and the same was repaired. There were already scratches on the said mobile, but false allegations have been made in the complaint. The mobile set in question is quite OK and the complainant can receive the same at any time after making the payment of Rs.4,500/- being repair charges of the said mobile set.
8. To prove his assertion regarding the scratches on the mobile set in question at the shop of the Opposite Party, the complainant has not produced any cogent and convincing evidence on record. Not only this, during the course of arguments, the complainant has failed to produce any job card or any other proof to prove that at the time of handing over the mobile set in question to the Opposite Party, it was not having any scratches on it. The complainant has also failed to prove that the Opposite Party has ever raised the demand of Rs.7000/- on account of repair charges of the mobile set in question. On the other hand, the Opposite Party in its reply as well as in his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP1 has specifically pleaded that Opposite Party has to charge Rs.4,500/- on account of repair charges. When the Opposite Party asked the complainant to pay Rs.4,500/- and take the mobile set in question, then the complainant refused.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Opposite Party to hand over the mobile set in question after its fully repair on receipt of Rs.4500/- from the complainant on account of repair charges. Since the complainant is wandering for redressal of his grievances from the last more than 2 years without mobile set which is admittedly lying with Opposite Party, hence the Opposite Party is also directed to pay lump-sum compensation amounting to Rs.2500/- to the complainant. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
10. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated: 21.12.2021.
