BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.
Complaint Case No.98 of 2016.
Date of Instt.:22.03.2016.
Date of Decision: 09.09.2016.
Ravi Kumar son of Shri Sita Ram resident of village Dholu Tehsil & District Fatehabad.
...Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Mohit Mobiles & Accessories, Palika Bazar, Fatehabad, (Wholesale dealer).
2. M/s B&B Mobiles, Repairing Centre, Palika Bazar, Fatehabad authorized service centre Fatehabad.
3.Main customer service, Spice Mobility Limited-5 Global Knowledge Park, 19A-20A, Sector 125, Noida (Utter Pardesh)- 201301
..Opposite Parties.
Before: Sh. Raghbir Singh, President.
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite parties Nos.1 & 2 exparte.
Sh. U.K. Gera, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a mobile set of Spice company Model MI-520n Steller having MI No.911319503536197 from opposite party No.1 on dated 19.06.2015 for a sum of Rs.6000/-. After some months of its purchase, the mobile started creating problem qua on/off button besides non-working of touch of the set. The complainant approached to opposite party no.2 and narrated about the problem who kept the mobile with it and asked to come after 15-18 days. Thereafter, the OP No.2 delivered old and inferior quality of the mobile having Emi No.913119502830237 to the complainant. Again the complainant deposited the mobile set to OP No.2 but this time also it delivered the same old and inferior quality of mobile to the complainant. The complainant objected to the same therefore, OP No.2 again kept the mobile with it and asked him to come after 15 days as the replacement of the set is to be done by company but the OP No.2 again returned the same mobile and flatly refused to replace the same. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service. In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavit and documents Ex.CW1, Annexure C1 and Annexure C2.
3. In-spite of due service, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties no.1 & 2, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.
4. Opposite party no.3 contested the compliant by filing its reply wherein it has been submitted that every genuine handset carries limited warranty of one year against manufacturing defect and the OP No.1 is not its authorized dealer. There is no documentary proof about the defect of the handset because as any consumer when approaches the Authorized Service Centre for any rectification then ASC provides job sheet for the submission of the handset but the complainant has not attached any job sheet. Present complaint is not maintainable because same has been filed by misusing the benevolent provisions of CPA Act for illegal gain. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence the OP No.3 has tendered affidavit Annexure R1 on the case file.
6. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and learned counsel for opposite party no.3 and have perused the case file carefully.
7. It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased a mobile handset in question from opposite party No.1 on 19.06.2015 for an amount of Rs.6000/- as is evident through Annexure C2. This fact is also not disputed that the mobile set went out of order during the period of warranty. The grievance of the complainant is that the OP No.2 did not rectify the defect in the set despite keeping the same with it for many days and further returned the inferior quality of mobile to the complainant. It is established on the case file that the OP No.1 had sold the mobile set in question, OP No.2 being authorized service centre issued the job sheet and OP No.3 is the manufacturer of the same. The contentions put forth by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged as the opposite parties No.1 & 2 have failed to appear before this Forum and have opted to be proceeded against exparte whereas conduct of opposite party no.3 shows that instead of resolving the matter it is trying to shift the burden on other Ops. Though the plea taken by OP No.3 regarding not submitting of any job sheet on the case file has no force because Annexure C1 (Job sheet) placed on the file clearly shows that the mobile hand set was deposited with the OP No.2 for repairing. There is no denial on the case file by the OP No.3 that the OP No.2 is not its Authorized Service Centre. The complainant has been deprived from using the mobile despite the fact that he has invested huge amount of Rs.6000/- for purchasing same. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted to provide protection to consumers from getting cheated or harassed by suppliers and it is the duty of the Forum to provide a simpler and quicker access to redressal of consumer grievances. This forum feel concerned that these days in fast life style of society, cellular set has become part and partial of every person and due to huge demand of mobiles the companies are attracting the customers by adopting different modes of advertisements but at the same time after selling the mobile set oftenly customers as well as consumers face a lot of problem even after paying the full cost of mobile set. In totality, the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of OPs as defined in Sections 2 (f) and 2 (g) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that complainant is entitled to refund of the price of the mobile in question as prayed for. Hence, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile in question i.e. Rs.6000/- to the complainant jointly and severally within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this order. We further direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- in lump sum to the complainant as compensation for harassment including litigation expenses. This order should be complied within a period of one month, failing which the above said amount of Rs.6000/- will carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual realization and the complainant will be at liberty to initiate legal action against the opposite parties. File be consigned to the record after due compliance. Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of costs.
Announced in open Forum:
Dt.09.09.2016. (Raghbir Singh)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.
(Ansuya Bishnoi)
Member
