Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1346/2015

Nand Lal Wadhwa - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Kings Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

13 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                Complaint No.  1346     

                                                Instituted on:    19.10.2015        

                                                Decided on:       13.07.2016

 

Nand Lal Wadhwa Son of Shri Sukhdial resident of House No.15/54, C/o Shan Traders, Sahni Bakery Street, Phirni Road, Sunami Gate, Sangrur.

                                                                                                                   …Complainant

                                        Versus

1.             M/s. Kings Electronics, Guru Nanak Colony, Main Road, Opp. Patwar Khana, Near Bus Stand, Sangrur through its Prop/owner.

2.             Micromax House, 90-B, Sector 18, Gurgaon-122 015 through its Manager.

3.             Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. Anjenya Infrastructure Project, Unit No.2, No.38 & 39, Soukya Road, Kacherakanahalli, Hoskote Taluka, Banglore Rural District Bangalore-560067 Karnataka through its Manager.                                                   

                                                                                                                      …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Neeraj Kalra, Adv.

For OP No.1&2         :               Shri  Ashish Grover, Adv.

For OP No.3             :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Nand Lal Wadhwa, 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 Micromax mobile set model A-1  from OP number 3 online  on 31.5.2015 for Rs.5999/- vide invoice number RI-209 with one year warranty of the mobile set against any manufacturing defect or poor workmanship. It is further averred in the complaint that on 7.8.2015, the display of the mobile set became blank, as such he informed OP number 3 on telephone, but the OP number 3 advised to approach OP number 1, as such the complainant approached OP number 1 on the same day i.e. 7.8.2015 and apprised about the problem in the mobile set. It is further stated that after checking of the mobile set, the OP number 1 told that its display is not working properly and told the complainant to leave the mobile set with him and to collect the same after one month, of which the OP number 1 issued the job sheet to the complainant. But, the OP number 1 did not return the mobile set despite visiting the OP number 1 so many times. It is stated further that though the complainant was called by OP number 1 to collect the mobile set on 15.10.2015, but the same was not returned saying that the mobile has been lost. As such,  alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to return him the mobile set or in the alternative to refund him the purchase price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.5999/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 3 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 3 was proceeded exparte on 15.12.2015.

 

3.             In reply filed by OPs number 1 and 2, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question from OP number 3. It is further admitted that the complainant approached OP number 1 for problem of ‘defect of display’ on 7.8.2015, of which the job sheet was issued. It is admitted further that the defect of the mobile set was rectified and called the complainant to take back the same, but he never approached the OPs to get the same.  It is stated that the complainant is himself in fault by not taking back the mobile set from the OP number 1. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1  and 2 has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of job sheet and Ex.C-3 copy of the bill and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 and 2  has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 affidavit of Nirbhai Singh and closed evidence.

 

5.             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.

 

6.               Ex.C-1 is the copy of the invoice issued by OP number 3 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.5999/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set and availed the services of the OP number 1, which has been manufactured by OP number 2.  It is further an admitted fact of the complainant that the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant became defective on 07.08.2015 with the problem ‘display blank display’, as is evident from the copy of job card sheet Ex.C-2, whereas the OP number 2 has denied that the complainant never approached OP number 1. 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.  It is worth mentioning here that the OP number 3 chose to remain exparte and even did not appear to deny this allegation of the complainant that he visited OP number 1 to get the problem of the mobile set rectified. 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 OP number 2 has also produced  his own affidavit Ex.OP1&2/1, 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. 

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs number 1 and 2 to deliver the complainant a new mobile set of the same make and model or in the alternative to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.5999/- being the cost of the mobile set along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 19.10.2015 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.

 

8.             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.

                July 13, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member