DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:34 of 2011] Date of Institution :21.01.2011 Date of Decision :21.04.2011 Sh. Suraj Pardhan son of Sh. Kubir Pardhan C/o Sh. Harmanjit Singh Thiara, resident of House No.1487, Sector 4-B, Chandigarh. ---Complainant. V E R S U S 1. M/s Harish Communication, S.C.O No.62-63, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh-100017. 2. M/s GSM (Fly Service Point) Quite Office No.4, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh. ---Opposite parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER Argued By:Sh. Amandeep Singh, Advocate proxy for Sh. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the complainant. OPs already exparte. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh. Suraj Pardhan has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to :- i) To deliver the Mobile Phone back to the complainant immediately. ii) To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service, harassment, mental tension and agony. iii) To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 3.8.2010, he purchased a mobile B-430 of Fly Company from OP No.1 having warranty of one year. On 20.11.2010, the said mobile developed problem of automatic “switch off”. So, on 26.11.2010, the complainant handed over the mobile to OP No.2 i.e. authorised service centre of OP No.1, for necessary repairs. On repeated visits and telephonic calls made by the complainant, the repaired mobile set was not returned to him. The complainant also visited the head office where OP No.2 had sent the mobile set for repairs by spending Rs.1,000/- as bus fair but came back empty hands. It was assured to him by the Head Office that the mobile set would be sent to OP No.2 after its repairs. As per the complainant, till date, the mobile set is lying with OP No.2 and has not been repaired. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. OPs were duly served through Process Server but no body appeared on their behalf. Therefore, they were ordered to be proceeded against vide order dated 4.03.2011. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have perused the record. 5. The averments made in the complaint as reproduced above stands corroborated from the affidavit of the complainant as well as from documents annexed with the complaint. From the copy of Retail Invoice dated 3.8.2010 (Annexure C-1), it is proved that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question for Rs.3,500/- from OP No.1. Annexure C-2 is the copy of Job Sheet dated 26.11.2010 vide which the mobile set was taken to the authorised service centre i.e. M/s G.S.M. (Fly Service Point) for necessary repairs and the problem reported by the complainant was as regards its switching off. The mobile set in question is covered under warranty as is evident from the Retail Invoice dated 3.8.2010. The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that the mobile set was not working properly and the same has not been returned to him after its repairs by OP No.2. Even vide letter dated 8.1.2010 (Annexure C-3) written by the complainant to OP No.2, he requested the OP to return his mobile set immediately as it had already taken 45 days in repairing the same. 6. Clause 8 of Terms and Conditions of Warranty Repairs as contained in Job Sheet (Annexure C-2) reads as under: - “7. GSM MASTERS shall make all efforts to ensure that product is repaired within 7 (seven) days from the date of receipts of faulty product. However, due to non availaibiltiy/shortage of critical spare parts or complicated fault, the repair turn around times may take longer than the indicated time for delivery in job sheet. GSM MASTERS will not be responsible for any loss whatever in the event of delay in repair for such aforementioned reasons.” 7. From the reading of the above clause, it is borne out that the delay in handing over the mobile set back to the complainant is only to be condoned in case there is any letter/report showing that the spare parts are not available or the mobile set has some complicated fault. But there is nothing on record from the side of OPs to show or they ever told to the complainant through any letter/correspondence that the spare parts of the faulty mobile are not available with them or it has developed some complicated fault. In the absence of all these pleadings, it cannot be said that the mobile set could not be repaired in the stipulated period of its repair. Otherwise also, the averments made in the complaint have gone un-rebutted and un-controverted as nobody appeared on behalf of the OPs despite due service to deny the same. In our considered view, non-returning the repaired mobile set to the complainant by OP No.2 and its Head Office, after retaining it for such a long period, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. 8. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed as under: - (i) to return the mobile phone to the complainant after making it fully operational and defect free without charging anything from him. (ii) to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation to the complainant for suffering mental agony and harassment due to deficiency in service. (iii) to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 9. This order be complied with by OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation along with penal interest @18% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e.21.1.2011 till its realization besides costs of litigationand also returning the fully repaired, defect free mobile set to the complainant. 10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 21st April 2011. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.34 of 2011 Argued By:Sh. Amandeep Singh, Advocate proxy for Sh. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the complainant. OPs already exparte. --- Arguments heard on 20.04.2011. The case was reserved for orders. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 21.04.2011 Member President Member
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
