BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.261 of 2018
Date of Instt. 18.06.2018
Date of Decision: 20.09.2022
Dr. Niranjan Bhowmick S/o Late Shri. B. R. Bhowmick, R/o AA-14, NIT Campus, National Institute of Technology, PO Regional Engg. College, G. T. Road, Jalandhar-144011.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Huawei Telecommunications (India), Company Pvt. Ltd., 7th & 8th Floor, Space Itech Park, Sohna Road, Gurgaon, Haryana- Through its Chairman/Managing Director/Directors/Principal Officer.
2. Vision Way Communication, Ground Floor, Jabble Tower, Beside Grand Mall, Near BMC Chowk, Jalandhar-144001 Through its Proprietor/Partner/Owner/Principal Officer.
3. M/s Fateh Enterprises, Shop No.1205, Model House, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar-144003 Through its Proprietor/Partners.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Atul Malhotra, Adv. Counsel for Complainant.
Sh. Balraj Sharma, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.
OP No.2 exparte.
OP No.3 withdrawn.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the OPs are engaged in selling of various items and goods through internet/websites to the general public for consideration throughout India particularly at Jalandhar. On the allurements, assurances and promises of OPs that OPs have a name in the market for selling quality goods and that sold by OPs are made of high quality material and goods craftsmanship and are guaranteed against any defect, complainant ordered for an Honor 8 mobile set worth Rs.15,795/-, which was supplied and delivered to Complainant through courier along with invoice dated 01.07.2017 at Jalandhar. The complainant had made payment to OPs through internet from Jalandhar. Within few months of purchase, complainant noted that the said mobile set is not working properly and was defects in the software and speaker and ringer. After noting the above said shortcomings and defects in the said mobile set, complainant immediately approached OPs through emails and requested for either rectifying the defects or for changing the said mobile set or for refund of the amount and return of the said product. Moreover, complainant approached and handed over the said defective mobile set to OP No.2 on 23.09.2017 for rectifying the defects. But OP No.2 failed to set right the said mobile and kept for long to repair than usual time for repairs. On the other hand when Complainant sent his representative to collect the said mobile set after repairs on the call of OP No.2, Complainant was shocked to learn that OP No.2 had damaged the said mobile phone on the front side. After filing of the complaint, service centre of OP No.1 has changed from OP No.2 to OP No.3. Thereafter, complainant requested OPs many times for refunding the amount and for compensation for mental tension, harassment, inconveniences etc. through emails, mobile phones calls etc. but OPs have failed to refund or change the said mobile phone till present date. Due to the above said facts, there is deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.15,795/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 01.07.2017 till its realization and further OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to complainant for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.2 failed to appear and ultimately, OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte. OP No.3 was dismissed as withdrawn by the complainant, vide his separate statement dated 19.09.2022, whereas OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the OP No.1 is well-known company of International repute and is engaged in business and manufacturing of mobiles, digital products (Laptop/Tablet) and other accessories. The OP No.1 has always taken due care and caution of the law of the land and has always been in compliance of all the Acts and the Rule of India. It is further averred that the OP No.2 is the authorized service centre of OP No.1 having office at Jalandhar. It is further averred that the present complaint is incorrect misconceived and denied and is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. It is an attempt to waste the precious time to this Commission, as the same has been filed by the complainant just to avail undue advantage. The complaint has no merits and deserves to be dismissed by this Commission. The complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intention to gaining financial benefit from OP No.1, which cannot be accepted. It is further averred that the OP No.1 is not in a position to provide any services to the complainant since the handset has not been damaged by OP No.2 and providing the services against the physical damage is not covered under the warranty. On merits, the factum with regard to purchasing the mobile from the OPs is admitted and it is also admitted that the mobile handset having some problems, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the arguments from learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. The complainant has proved that he has purchased the mobile from the OP No.1 through Internet. He has proved on record the copy of invoice dated 01.07.2017 Ex.C-1. The mobile was purchased for Rs.15,795/-. As per the allegations of the complainant, after two months of its purchase, it came to his notice that the mobile was not working properly and there were defects in the software, speaker and ringer. The complainant approached the OP for rectifying the defect and handed over the mobile to the OP. Ex.C-2 is the acknowledgment slip, which is of 23.09.2017 and the product was within warranty as per this document also. The complainant has proved on record the photos of the phone Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4. The complainant has alleged that when he sent his representative to collect the mobile, he found that the mobile was completely damaged from the front side. The complainant has asked and requested the OPs to refund the amount and for compensation number of times and sent emails also, which have been proved by the complainant from Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-13.
7. Perusal of Ex.C-5, the email clear cut shows that the complainant had categorically mentioned the fact that he had handed over the mobile phone to the OP due to problem in speaker on 23.09.2017 and he is facing problem. In reply to the email, the OP has stated that this device comes with 15 months warranty and if the product is found with any physical and liquid damage in the phone, the warranty will be void. In all the emails, the complainant has specifically alleged that after one month of the purchase of new mobile, the same is giving problem and time and again asked the OP to refund the money, but every time the OPs had given the reply that they had already forwarded their case to the concerned department, but till the filing of the complaint, the grievance of the complainant was not redressed. The job sheet nowhere shows that there was any such liquid damage in the mobile, which will void the warranty. This fact has been admitted by the OPs that the mobile was presented before them and same was repaired, but the complainant has refused to accept the same. Ex.C-11 shows that the complainant sent email to the OP, in which he has specifically mentioned that he handed over a brand new mobile as it was protected by screen guard and leather cover, but they are returning the mobile with one portion damage. The email dated 14.11.2017, which is a part of Ex.C-11 shows that the complainant has specifically mentioned that the mobile is still lying with the service centre of the OPs and this is very unfortunate. The reply to the email dated 15.11.2017 also shows that the mobile is still with the service centre of the OP as the OP has mentioned that the service centre needs to check the whole device, meaning thereby that it has been admitted by the OPs that soon after the purchase of the mobile, the same started giving trouble to the complainant and the mobile is still lying with the OP.
8. The OP has alleged that the OP No.2 was the authorized service centre, which has been closed in the month of January, 2018 and the complainant has approached the OP three months later, but this defence is of no help to the OP as this is none of the business of the complainant as to whether the OP No.2 has been closed or not. The services are to be provided by the OP No.1 and it is their duty to give the proper services to the customer/complainant as the consideration has been paid by the complainant within no time. The complainant cannot be made suffer for the fault of the OPs. The complainant has purchased the new mobile for Rs.15,795/-, but immediately after 1 or 2 months, the same started giving trouble. Instead of giving the proper services and changing the mobile, it is being alleged that the repaired mobile was handed over to the complainant. This is clear cut deficiency in services on the part of the OPs and the same is unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs and accordingly, the complainant is entitled for the relief.
9. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.15,795/- to the complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from 01.07.2017 till realization. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
20.09.2022 Member Member President
