Punjab

Moga

CC/15/51

Meetpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Mohindra Mobile World - Opp.Party(s)

In person

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                      C.C. No. 51 of 2015

                                                                Instituted On: 03.08.2015

                                                  Decided On: 30.11.2015

 

Meetpal Singh aged 21 years Date of Birth 08.08.1994, s/o Shavinder Singh, resident of Village Fatehgarh Panjtoor, Tehsil Dharamkot, District Moga.

 

Complainant 

Versus

 

1. M/s Mahindra Mobile World, Near Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Court Road, Moga, through its Owner/Partner.

2. M/s APP Shield Solution, Kartar Singh Sidhu Complex, Top Floor, Kochar Market Chowk, Ludhiana, through its Owner/Partner.

 

Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint under section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

 

Coram:      Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

                   Smt.Vinod Bala, Member

                   Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member

Present:      Sh.Meetpal Singh complainant in person.

                    Opposite party nos. 1& 2exparte.

 

ORDER

(S.S.Panesar, President)

                  Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against M/s Mahindra Mobile World, Near Jammu & Kashmir Bank, Court Road, Moga, through its Owner/Partner and others (herein-after referred to as opposite parties)- directing them to replace the old mobile hand set with new one or to repair the mobile hand set in dispute at their own cost and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment to the complainant.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that opposite party no.1 is the dealer of Nokia India Sales Private Limited and is selling the Nokia mobile hand sets. The complainant has purchased Nokia Lumia 730 DL IMEI no.355151065208821 from opposite party no.1 vide bill no.47923 dated 12.11.2014 for an amount of Rs.14,500/-. The opposite party no.1 also received Rs.1199/- as mobile insurance plan from the complainant and customer copy was provided by New India Assurance Company Limited. The opposite party told the complainant about the insurance plan that in case of any defect in mobile hand set or in case of any damage of the mobile hand set, the company will provide new mobile hand set and in case of defect, if the mobile will be repaired, the complainant has to pay Rs.750/- only and the other charges will be paid by the insurance company. On 30.06.2015, the touch screen of the mobile hand set in dispute was damaged and mobile hand set stopped working. The complainant requested the opposite party no.1 for repair of the mobile hand set, who told the complainant to call opposite party no.2. On 01.07.2015, the complainant lodged a complaint no.759 with opposite party no.2 and the employee of opposite party no.2 came to Moga on 02.07.2015 and collected the defective mobile hand set from the complainant against receipt no.759 dated 2.7.2015. The employee of the opposite party no.2 assured the complainant that his mobile will be repaired within 21 days and the complainant has to pay Rs.750/- only according to the insurance policy. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 has demanded Rs.8000/- as mobile repair charges. The complainant visited many times to the opposite parties and requested it for return of the repaired mobile hand set, but opposite parties refused to return the mobile hand set without payment of Rs.8000/-. The services rendered by the opposite parties are deficient and complainant has been harassed unnecessarily. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, despite due service, none has put appearance on behalf of opposite parties, as such, opposite parties were ordered to be proceeded exparte.

4.                 In his exparte evidence, the complainant Meetpal Singh appeared in witness box as his own witness and filed her duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of his allegations made in the complaint. The complainant also produced on record photocopies of the documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-6.

5.                We have heard the complainant in person and have carefully gone through record placed on file.

6.                Evidence adduced by the complainant has gone un-rebutted on record. It is evident that the complainant had purchased mobile Nokia Lumia 730 DL, IMEI no.355151065208821 from opposite party no.1 vide bill no.47923 dated 12.11.2014 for an amount of Rs.14,500/-, copy of the bill/retail invoice accounts for Ex.C-2. Opposite party no.1 also received Rs.1199/- as Mobile Insurance Plan and Consumer Copy was provided by New India Assurance Company Limited, copy of the insurance plan accounts for Ex.C5. The opposite party no.1 told the complainant about the insurance plan that in case of any defect in mobile hand set or in case of any damage of mobile hand set, the company will provide new mobile hand set. In case of any defect, if the mobile will be repaired, the complainant has to pay Rs.750/- only while other charges borne by the complainant will be paid by insurance company. On 30.06.2015, the touch screen of the mobile hand set in dispute was got damaged and mobile hand set stopped working. The complainant requested the opposite party no.1 for repair of the mobile hand set, which told the complainant to approach opposite party no.2. On 01.07.2015, the complainant lodged complaint no.759 with opposite party no.2 and the employee of opposite party no.2 came to Moga on 02.07.2015 and collected the defective mobile hand set from the complainant against receipt no.759 dated 2.7.2015. The employee of the opposite party no.2 assured the complainant that his mobile will be repaired within 21 days while the complainant will have to pay Rs.750/- only according to the insurance policy. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 has demanded Rs.8000/- as mobile repair charges. The complainant requested opposite parties many a times for return of the repaired mobile hand set without charging Rs.8000/-, but opposite parties refused to oblige.

7.                In case in hand, the complainant has been able to prove that the mobile hand set in dispute was under insurance cover, copy of insurance plan accounts for Ex.C5 on record. There are terms & conditions in the insurance plan that in case any repairs of the mobile hand set in dispute is undertaken, the complainant shall have to pay Rs.750/- only and rest of the expenses on repairs shall be borne by the insurance company. Since the opposite parties have got the mobile hand set in dispute insured from the New India Assurance Company Ltd against insurance cover referred to above, therefore, they could recover the repair charges from the insurance company, but they cannot ask the complainant to bear the repair expenses in dispute. As such, the illegal demand of opposite parties asking the complainant to pay Rs.8000/- as repair charges, is not sustainable at law. It is a clear cut case of deficient service on the part of opposite parties. Even otherwise also the opposite parties have wilfully suffered exparte despite due service and thereby impliedly admitted the case of the complaint. As such, the complaint is liable to be allowed.

8.                Consequently, the instant complaint succeeds and the opposite parties are directed to return the mobile hand set in dispute i.e. IMEI no.355151065208821 belonging to the complainant immediately, without charging any amount on account of repair charges. The complaint stands allowed exparte accordingly. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

                   (Bhupinder Kaur)          (Vinod Bala)        (S.S. Panesar)

                      Member                           Member               President

 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:30.11.2015.