DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.14 of 18.1.2016

                                      Decided on:   20.7.2017

Uday Gupta, Resident of Hamara Petrol Pump, Village Chalella, Sirhind Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       M/s North India Top Company(P) Ltd., ICI Supply Chain Solutions, C/o Acom Warehouse & Legistics Park, 08 Vill Kapriwas & Malpura,Rewari, Haryana-India 123106.

2.       M/s Spice Retail Limited, Authorized Service Centre, Ganesh Electronics, 37-C,Manshaia Colony, Near 21-No.Railway Road, Patiala-147001.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.Baljinder Singh,Advocate,counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.B.S.Sodhi,Advocate,counsel for OP no.1.

                                      Opposite Party No.2 ex-parte.

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM  GUPTA,  MEMBER

1. The complainant made an on-line purchase of  one mobile phone from Op no.1, vide invoice No.N1TCDRH/DRH/04/2015/4564993 dated 15.4.2015, for an amount of Rs.5249.It is averred that from the very beginning , the said mobile phone was giving problem and on 14.5.2015, the complainant approached OP no.2 i.e. the authorized service centre of the company and deposited the mobile phone with it on 14.5.2015 vide service request docket No.19102080 F50055. The complainant visited OP no.2 time and again but OP no.2 has neither repaired nor replaced the mobile phone with a new one and it has been lying with Op no.2 since 14.5.2015. The complainant underwent a lot of harassment, mental agony as well as suffered monetary loss. Ultimately, he approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act( for short the Act)1986.
2. On notice, OP no.1 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint whereas OP no.2 failed to appear despite service and was thus proceeded against exparte. In its reply, counsel for Op no.1 has submitted that Op no.1 is just a vendor/seller of the product in question. It’s only role is to book the order and to timely deliver the original product. There is no such averment with regard to deficiency in service with regard to services provided by Op no.1.As such non performance of work/liability  on the part of the authorized service centre and manufacturer of the product in question, if any and could be attributed to OP no.1. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C3 and closed the evidence.
4. The ld. counsel for Op no.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, affidavit of Sh.Sanjeev Mehra, Director of Op no.1 alongwith documents Exs.RW1/1 to RW1/4 (i.e. Exs.OP1 to OP4) and closed the evidence.
5. The ld. counsel for the parties have filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased one mobile phone from Op no.1 on 15.4.2015,Ex.C2 is the copy of the job sheet, whereby the complainant deposited the mobile phone with the service centre i.e. OP no.2 on 14.5.2015 i.e. just within a month of the said purchase. Since 14.5.2015, the mobile phone in question has been lying with Op no.2 who has neither repaired nor replaced the mobile phone of the complainant. The complainant visited Op no.2 time and again but OP no.2 did not return the mobile phone to the complainant. On 5.11.2015, the complainant also got served a legal notice to the OPs but to no use. Morethan 27 months have passed but the mobile phone of the complainant is lying with Op no.2, which amounted to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OP no.2.
7. As an upshot of aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to Op no.2 to replace the mobile phone of the complainant with a new one of the same make with requisite warranty and if that is not possible to refund a sum of Rs.5249/-, the same being the price of the mobile phone to the complainant. OP no.2 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.4000/-as compensation for the harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:20.7.2017                

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER