DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.
Complaint No. CC/15/137 of 08/07/2015
Decided on 11/02/2016
Harchand Singh aged 64 years son of late Sh. Kapoor Singh, resident of House no.122, Saheed Bhagat Singh Colony, Rajpura Town, Rajpura, Distt. Patiala.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s New Bansal Telecom, Shop no.3, Tahliwala Chowk, Near Gurudwara Gate, Rajpura Town, Distt. Patiala through its authorized signatory Sh. Joni Bansal.
2. Xolo Care, Gaurav Agencies, Bus Stand, Lahori Gate road, Patiala.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the
Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM
Sh. A. P. S. Rajput, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
Smt. Sonia Bansal, Member
Present:
For Complainant : Sh. Dev Singh Advocate.
For Opposite party no. 1 : Sh. Amit Kumar Bedi Advocate
For Opposite party no. 2 : Sh. J. P. Sharma Advocate
ORDER
NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER:
1. The complainant purchased one mobile phone, Model No.XOLO Q700 S, with IMEI no.911353051777846, colour Black from OP no.1 (here and after referred as OP) for an amount of Rs.9200/- on 06/06/2014. It is averred that in the month of December, 2014 the mobile hand set got hanged and the complainant got it repaired from OP no.2 through OP no.1. Again in the month of January 2015, it got hanged and the complainant approached OP no.1 and OP no.1 got it repaired from OP no.2. It is further averred that on 18/2/2015, the said mobile phone again started giving the same problem and the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP no.1, who kept the mobile phone with it for 2 months and thereafter it told the complainant that the mobile phone was to be sent to the company and the complainant will have to pay Rs.1500/- for that. The mobile phone was sent to the company by OP no.1 and was received by OP no.2 on 18/4/2015 for repair. Hence job sheet dt. 18/4/2015 was given to the complainant by OP no.1. In the month of April only the complainant received a phone call from OP no.2 stating that the expenses of repair of the mobile phone would be Rs.3300/- which shall be paid by the complainant. The complainant told OP no.2 to repair the mobile phone without charging anything as the mobile phone was within warranty period. But OP no.2 returned the mobile phone to the complainant un-repaired. On 20/5/2015 the complainant got served a legal notice to the OPs but to no use. The complainant underwent a lot of mental agony as well as harassment at the hands of OPs. Ultimately he approached this Forum u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ( for short the Act).
2. On notice, Ops appeared through their counsels and filed their reply to the complaint. In its written statement, OP no.1 after admitting that the mobile phone in question was purchased by the complainant from it, has denied all the allegations levelled in the complaint and it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. Whereas OP no.2 in its written statement stated that the complainant approached OP no.2 on 18/4/2015 and the engineer of the company checked the mobile phone thoroughly and told the complainant that the mobile phone was physically damaged and hence it was out of warranty and the complainant will have to pay the charges for getting it repaired. It is further averred that the company is ready to repair the mobile phone but the complainant be directed to produce the mobile phone in the Court. After denying all other allegations levelled against it in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint with heavy cost.
4. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his sworn affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and his counsel closed the evidence. Whereas counsel for OP no.1 tendered in evidence Ex.OPB, the sworn affidavit of Sh. Johny Bansal, Prop. of M/s New Bansal Telecom and closed the evidence. Counsel for OP no.2 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh. Amardeep Singh of M/s Lava International Ltd. and closed the evidence.
5. Counsel for OP no.2 filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
6. Ex.C-1 is the invoice whereby the complainant purchased one mobile phone model No.XOLO Q 700S from OP no.1 on 06/06/2014 for an amount of Rs.9200/-. Ex.C-2 is the copy of the job sheet issued by OP no.2, which shows the problem in the mobile phone as 'Dead' due to 'physical damage' which also shows that the mobile phone is out of warranty.
7. The only plea taken by OP no.2 in its written statement as well as the sworn affidavit of Sh. Amardeep Singh is that the complainant has failed to place on record any expert opinion which may show that the mobile phone is not working properly due to some manufacturing defect in it. On 18/04/2015, the Engineer of the company checked the unit and found that the mobile phone was barred by warranty due to physical damage and the complainant will have to pay for the repair/ replacement of the display of the mobile phone. OP is still ready to repair the mobile phone as per company policy. As such, no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the OP.
8. Today during the course of the arguments, the complainant produced the mobile phone in the court. On examining the same, it was found that the mobile phone was neither dead nor it was physically damaged.
9. The problem in the mobile phone was regarding 'screen display'. The problem occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period and the OP was bound to rectify the same, which it failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to OP no.2 to rectify the problem in the said mobile phone upto the satisfaction of the complainant and if that is not possible to replace it with a new one of the same make with requisite warranty and if that is not possible to refund an amount of Rs.9200/-, the same being the price of the mobile phone. Opposite party no.2 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant which is inclusive of the cost of litigation. Order be complied by OP no.2 within one month of the receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Pronounced
Dated: 11/02/2016.
Sonia Bansal A. P. S. Rajput Neelam Gupta
Member President Member
