Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/724

Ridhi Makkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Mobile Hub - Opp.Party(s)

Rakesh Gupta Adv.

21 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 724 of 15.12.2015

Date of Decision            :   21.04.2016

Ridhi Makkar wife of Sh.Aashish Makkar, resident of House No. Malerkotla House, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.M/s Mobile Hub, The Multi Brand Store, Shop/Flat No.2, Ghumar Mandi, Opp. Punjab & Sind Bank, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001 through its Proprietor/authorized signatory.

2.TVS Electronics Ltd.,(Service Centre) Plot No.260-A, First Floor, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana-141002.

3.HTC India Pvt. Ltd.,(Corporate Office)G-4 BPTP-Park Avenue Sector 30(near NH-8)Gurgaon-122002.

…Opposite party

 

                             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS. VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :        Sh.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate   

For OPs                         :        Ex-parte

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) filed by complainant against Ops                               by alleging that she purchased mobile set  of HTC-620 G with white colour having IMEI No.356530061896565 for consideration of Rs.15,600/- including VAT @9.35% vide invoice No.1895 dated 1.1.2015 from OP1 against cash amount. At the time of purchase, Op1 assured the complainant that purchased mobile will  render good services. Believing that representation, complainant purchased    mobile set from Op1 with the assurance that in case of defect in the mobile set, due services will be provided by OP2 including that of replacement of the defective mobile set. Complainant visited OP2 twice, but the officials of OP2 disclosed that they have to change the motherboard/IMEI. However, complainant was not aspiring to change the motherboard again and again because it stood already changed twice by OP2. Op3, the manufacturer tried to destroy its image in the market by selling defective products. Complainant through email sent request for complaining as if service station has not provided due services. Numerous emails were sent by the husband of the complainant to higher officials of OP3 on 12.11.2015 etc. No satisfactory reply was received and nor the mobile set was changed or repaired. Thereafter, two more emails were sent to OP3, but they did not sent the reply. Complainant claims to have suffered for the last 3-4 months, due to non functioning of the mobile set. Op1 and OP2 are postponing the matter. Complainant claimed that her husband is suffering from Hernia, due to which, he  is advised for complete bed rest, but due to non-functioning of the mobile set, she has suffered mental torture at to the hands of service engineer of service station.  As the pointed out defects have not been removed by doing the due repair of the mobile set by the Ops and as such, by pleading mental harassment as well as deficiency in service, directions sought for refund of price of mobile set of Rs.15,600/-. Compensation for loss in profession of amount of Rs.30,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- more claimed.

2.                None appeared for Ops and as such, they were proceeded against ex-parte.

3.                Earlier one Mr.Inderjeet Kumar, Service Engineer of OP1 at Ludhiana Centre submitted writing for claiming that he was appearing for OP1 and OP3, but later on, none appeared for OP2 and OP3. Op1 was served through owner Mr.Amanjot Singh, but even none appeared for him and as such, OP1 to OP3 were proceeded against ex-parte.

4.                Complainant in ex-parte evidence tendered her affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and thereafter, her counsel closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments not submitted but only oral arguments of     counsel of complainant heard. Records gone through carefully.

6.                Affidavit Ex.CA of complainant along with retail invoice, copy of which is Ex.C1 produced on record, clearly establishes the fact that mobile in question was purchased by the complainant from OP1 for consideration of Rs.15,600/- on 1.1.2015. On this retail invoice Ex.C1 itself it has been mentioned that warranty will be provided by the authorized service centre. In view of this term incorporated on Ex.C1 itself, it is obvious that warranty for due functioning of the mobile set to be provided by the service centre for and on behalf of manufacture and as such, liability for repair or refund of the price amount will remain of OP2 and OP3 together because OP2 is the service centre and OP3 is the manufacturer.

7.                Ex.C3 is the document showing that IMEI(Slot1) replaced for the second time. Ex.C4  the repair report of HTC shows replacement for the first     time of IMEI. Through Ex.C4 of 6.11.2015 recommendation for replacement of motherboard was made by service engineer of OP2, due to system hang under OS. So documents Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 enough to prove that IMEI of mobile set in question replaced twice and that replacement itself enough to hold as if mobile set not working properly. Ex.C2 the email correspondence shows as if complaints regarding  improper  functioning  of  the  mobile  set  was  sent  by the complainant. As that improper working started within 1 year of its purchase and as such, in view of warranty of 1 year, liability of OP2 and OP3 remain to repair the mobile set in question properly.

8.                In case, mobile set in question cannot be repaired, then Op2 and OP3 must replace the purchased mobile set with new one as per rules and regulations   of manufacturer. Refund of the sale price amount not warranted, particularly when report of expert not produced by the complainant to establish that mobile set in question cannot be repaired at all.

9.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed ex-parte against OP2 and OP3 in terms that OP2 and OP3 will repair the mobile set in question within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, but in case, they find the mobile set in question to be un-repairable, then they will replace the mobile set in question with new one as per rules and regulations of the Op3 company. Compensation for harassment of Rs.1500/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1500/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP2 and OP3. Liability of OP2 and OP3 will remain joint and several. Complaint against OP1 is dismissed. Compliance of order qua payment of compensation and litigation be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. 

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Vinod Bala)                                 (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:21.04.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.