DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 671 of 2010 Date of Inst:14.10.2010 Date of Decision:11.03.2011 Devinder Kumar age 55 years s/o Sh.Sita Ram r/o H.No.614, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. M/s Naresh Departmental Store, SCO No.1026, Sector 22-B, Opp. Main Bus Stand, Chandigarh through its Proprietor. 2. M/s New Tech Electronics, L.G. Mobile GSM Authorized Service Centre, SCO No.495-96, F.F.Sector 35-C, Chandigarh. 3. M/s L.G. Electronics Ltd., SCO No.142-143, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its B.S.M. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.A.K.Sharma, Adv. for complainant with complainant Sh.C.D.Jindal, Adv. for OPs No.2 and 3 OP No.1 exparte. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Devinder Kumar has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to :- i) Refund Rs.6500/- being the price of the mobile set. ii) Pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. iii) Pay a sum of Rs.11000/- as costs of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that, he purchased a mobile set (LG KM335) from OP-1 vide bill No.9845 dated 18.11.2009 for Rs.6500/- (Annexure C-1). The mobile set was covered under warranty of one year. According to the complainant, soon after its purchase, the mobile phone started hanging and used to shut down. He approached M/s New Tech Electronics (OP-2) who retained the mobile set with it as the same was required to be sent to L.G Mobile at Noida (UP) for its repairs. The mobile set was returned to the complainant after one month. Its mother board was changed. OPs also affixed stamp regarding change of board on the original invoice by allotting different mobile no. i.e. TIN 358179. It has further been pleaded by the complainant that the mobile set worked for 15 days and thereafter it again started giving problem of early discharge of battery. The complainant again approached OP-2 who again got it repaired. Even thereafter the mobile set was not functioning properly. So it was got repaired by OP-2 a number of times. According to the complainant, the mobile set was repaired repeatedly but the same was not working properly. On 16.09.2010, he handed over the mobile set to OPs and the same is still lying with OPs for repairs. According to the complainant, there is some manufacturing defect in it. So OPs are bound to replace it with a new handset as the same is still under warranty. According to the complainant, failure to replace the mobile set amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. OP-1 was duly served but nobody appeared on its behalf either in person nor through any agent, hence it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.11.2010. 4. In their written statement, OPs No.2 and 3 pleaded that the mobile set is lying fully repaired but the complainant is not returning the stand by set which was given to him on 16.09.2010. All the allegations made in the complaint are denied by OPs. According to OPs No.2 and 3 there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint qua them deserves dismissal. 5. In his affidavit filed on 10.03.2011, the complainant has denied of having received any standby set from OPs. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 7. The averments made in the complaint as reproduced above in para No.2 of the order stands corroborated from the affidavit of the complainant as well as the Annexures P-1 to P-3. Annexure P-1 is the copy of the bill No. 9845 dated 18.11.2009. From this document, it is proved that the mobile set in question was purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs.6500/- from OP-2. Annexure P-2 is the copy of the service slip. From this document, it is apparent that the mobile set was handed over to the OPs for its repairs. The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that the mobile in question is not working properly since the day of its purchase. It was handed over to OP-2 for repairs on 16.09.2010. It has not been returned to the complainant despite his repeated requests. 8. Faced with this situation, it has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the OPs No.2 and 3 that the mobile set is lying fully repaired but the complainant is not returning the stand by set which was given to him on 16.09.2010 and reliance has been placed upon the Annexure R-1. On this document, nowhere it has been mentioned that standby handset was given to the complainant nor it bears the signatures of the complainant for having received the standby mobile set. The words “used set” mentioned do not prove that the standby set was ever given to the complainant. So, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the OPs No.2 and 3 has no force. On the other hand, the complainant has filed his affidavit dated 17.03.2011 deposing therein that he has not received a standby set in lieu of his own mobile set from the OPs. 9. Admittedly, the mobile set is with the OPs. It has not been returned after its repairs. As the handset has been repaired a number of times and despite it the same is not functioning properly so it has some manufacturing defect as held in the case titled Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. Vs. Lt. Cdr. Udaybi reported in I(2008) CPJ-490 (NC). As the defective mobile handset has not been replaced it amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the complaint deserves success and the complainant is held entitled to the refund of its price. 10. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs to refund Rs.6500/- being the price of the mobile set to the complainant. OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2500/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5500/- as costs of litigation. 11. This order be complied with by OPs jointly and severally within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to refund Rs.9000/- (Rs.6,500/- being the price of the mobile set and Rs.2,500/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment) along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from date of filing of the complaint till its realization besides costs of litigation. 12. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced sd/- 11.03.2011 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Cm Sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
