View 9794 Cases Against Mobile
Jatinder Kumar filed a consumer case on 16 Dec 2016 against M/s Mobile Zone in the Ludhiana Consumer Court. The case no is CC/16/614 and the judgment uploaded on 12 Jan 2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Consumer Complaint No. 614 of 23.08.2016
Date of Decision : 16.12.2016
Jatinder Kumar son of Salig Ram resident of H.No.1180, Street No.9, Guru Arjun Dev Nagar, Near Samrala Chowk, Ludhiana presently working as Assistant Manager at United India Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office G.T.Road, Khanna.
….. Complainant
Versus
1.M/s Mobile Zone (PB), Gill Road, Ludhiana, (authorized service centre of Micromax Mobile) through its authorized signatory.
2.Micromax Infomatics Limited, 21/14A, Phase-II, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi-110028, through its authorized signatory.
…Opposite parties
(Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)
QUORUM:
SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT
MRS.VINOD BALA, MEMBER
SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : In person
For OP1 : Ex-parte
For OP2 : Complaint not admitted vide orders dated
01.09.2016.
PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT
1. Shorn off unnecessary details, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Micromax Canvass mobile phone in 2013. The said mobile phone was working efficiently uptill June, 2016. In the last week of June 2016, the said mobile phone of the complainant started giving problem regarding power on-off and as such, the complainant visited OP1, the authorized service centre of Micromax mobile phones with above said mobile set for getting the same repaired. OP1 after checking, disclosed that some parts of the mobile phone are damaged, due to which, his mobile phone is giving problem. Those parts were advised to be got replaced. Complainant was disclosed that he will have to pay Rs.650/- to OP1. Complainant expressed his willingness to pay Rs.650/-. OP1 disclosed the complainant that he will have to leave his mobile phone with OP1 for 2-3 days and complainant did the same. Op1 issued a job card/sheet regarding receipt of the mobile phone for repair bearing receipt number No90508-0616-24100709 dated 27.6.2016. OP1 assured to return back the mobile phone after due repair. After lapse of 3 days, the complainant again approached OP1 for getting his mobile phone back, but OP1 disclosed that the complainant will have to wait for another 2-3 days. Thereafter, the complainant visited OP1 several times with request for return of mobile phone, but every time, Op1 used to give the same answer of wait for 2-3 days. Complainant sent emails to OP2 on 11.7.2016 and 21.7.2016 with request to call upon OP1 to hand over the duly repaired handset and to initiate the action against OP1, but to no effect. After lapse of one month, OP1 has not returned the duly repaired mobile phone to the complainant. That mobile phone has not been returned till date and as such, the complainant is suffering harassment and mental agony. Earlier, the complainant obtained the mobile phone on daily basis rent by paying Rs.400/- per day, owing to which, he sustained monetary loss. Complainant had purchased a new mobile phone of Rs.5999/-. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops and after serving registered legal notice dated 26.7.2016 through counsel, this complaint filed for issuing directions to OP1 to hand over the duly repaired mobile phone without charging any cost. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- more claimed.
2. At the stage of admission itself, complaint against Op2 was not allowed to be proceeded with because mobile phone in question was lying with OP1 and non return of the same pleaded for issuing direction to OP2 to return the mobile phone after due repair.
3. OP1 in this case is ex-parte.
4. Complainant in ex-parte evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and then closed the ex-parte evidence.
5. Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard and records gone through carefully.
6. As per contents of affidavit Ex.CA as well as of complaint and job card/sheet Ex.C1, the mobile phone in question was deposited by the complainant with OP1 on facing problem of power on-off on 27.6.2016. That mobile phone has not been returned to the complainant, despite repeated visits and as such, deficiency in service pleaded on the part of OP1. Either OP1 should have returned the mobile phone back to the complainant or he should have given due intimation to the complainant qua repairable or non-repairable position of the mobile phone. That has not been done and as such, certainly retention of the mobile phone of the complainant by OP1 for more than two months amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Op1.
7. As per contents of para no.3 of the complaint, the mobile phone was purchased in 2013, but the defect developed in June, 2016 and as such, virtually the defect did not occur within the warranty period. Even in job sheet Ex.C1, it is mentioned that repair warranty is not there and that is why Rs.650/- mentioned as estimate cost of repair. So, certainly the complainant will have to pay the cost of repair to OP1 and on payment of these costs alone, OP1 to return the repaired mobile phone. No allegations levelled in the complaint or in the affidavit as to when the estimated cost of repair was offered or paid and as such, in absence of the same, it has to be held that complainant has not offered the estimated cost of repair. Rather, in para no.16 of the complaint, prayer made for directing OP1 to repair the mobile phone in question without charging any cost. So, virtually the complainant by filing this complaint wants to escape from liability of paying the due cost price of repair. In view of this, complainant cannot be said to have approached this Forum with clean hands and as such, he is not entitled for any cost of litigation, even though he may have served legal notice Ex.C2 through acknowledgment Ex.C3 on OP1 or even if he may have sent emails Ex.C4 and Ex.C5. If complainant had purchased another standby mobile phone, then the said purchase through Ex.C6 made by the complainant on 22.7.2016 at his own, because he failed to prove that he offered cost price of the repair to OP1 at any time. Rather, complainant wants to get compensation for alleged harassment in the guise of alleged deficiency in service on the part of Op1, which in fact does not exist, especially when OP1 not bound to repair the mobile phone in question free of cost after the warranty period is over. Mention regarding warranty as over specifically made in job sheet Ex.C1 itself. However, Op1 cannot retain the mobile phone in question with him because the same is the property of the complainant and as such, ends of justice warrants that OP1 should be directed to return the mobile phone in question to the complainant after due repair, but on payment of Rs.650/- as the cost price mentioned in Ex.C1. Op1 has lien till receipt of cost of repair.
8. As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed ex-parte in terms that OP1 will return duly repaired mobile set to the complainant within 30 days after receipt of Rs.650/- as cost price of the repair from the complainant. Complainant will offer that price of Rs.650/- to OP1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and OP1 after acceptance of that offer and receipt of Rs.650/- from the complainant will return the duly repaired mobile set to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of above said cost price of Rs.650/-. No order as to costs. No amount of compensation awarded. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.
9. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Vinod Bala) (Param Jit Singh Bewli) (G.K. Dhir)
Member Member President
Announced in Open Forum
Dated:16.12.2016
Gurpreet Sharma.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.