BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.37 of 2017
Date of Institution: 15.2.2017
Date of Decision: 8.12.2017
Yashveer Sethi minor through his father Prem Chand, resident of C/O Sandeep Kumar son of Raj Kumar, Begu Road, Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. M/S Shree Satyam Mobile, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa through its partner/ Prop.
2. M/S Chugh Communication, authorized Spice Care Center, shop no.83, New MC Market, Sirsa through its Manager/ Partner/ Proprietor.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Mukesh Saini, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that complainant had purchased a spice mobile set model no. spice MI509 from opposite party no.1 vide bill no.3054 dated 28.7.2016. That in the month of December, complainant faced problem in the mobile set as it was not working properly and used to switch off automatically while touching its screen. That the complainant visited spice care center i.e. op no.2 and told them about the problem. It is further averred that complainant requested op no.2 for replacement of the above said mobile with new one as the warranty/ replacement was promised by the company through its local shopkeeper i.e. op no.1. That after inspecting and checking the mobile set, the op no.2 straightway denied to replace or repair the mobile by saying that his mobile is not in the warranty period because warranty period was started from 23.2.2015 when the sim was slotted in the mobile set. That the complainant showed his original bill/ invoice bearing no.3054 of op no.1 to op no.2 and asked them to repair or replace the mobile set as he brought new mobile on 28.7.2016 but op no.2 flatly refused the request of the complainant. It is further averred that then complainant approached op no.1 and asked about cheating and requested him to replace the mobile but he straightway denied the request of complainant by saying do whatever he wants to do. That the op no.1 cheated the complainant by supplying him a used mobile with packed box by saying new mobile. That due to act and conduct of the ops, the complainant has suffered harassment and mental tension. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the ops to replace the mobile set with new one or to pay the cost of the mobile i.e. Rs.5000/- with interest and also to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.25,000/- for deficiency of service and cheating besides litigation expenses.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op has never given any guarantee/ assurance or warranty of mobile set to the complainant as giving of guarantee/ warrantee by answering op does not fall within his criteria, hence the question of promise/ guarantee/ warrantee without having received from manufacturing company to the complainant does not arise at all. Moreover, manufacturing company always mentions the guarantee/ warrantee conditions on the log book/ manual contained in box of mobile set which ought to go through by each customer and the manufacturer also mentions the list of their authorized service centre, which are being run under the control of manufacturing company for providing time to time services to the customers and they also advised to the customers to get their complaint redressed from the authorized service centre meaning thereby that the dealers after sale of mobile set on behalf of company has no interference between the customers and service centers. The answering op supplied the set in intact/ packed condition without any kind of temperament with the sealed box containing the mobile set. Moreover, the complainant did not raise any objection or complaint in this regard at the time of purchase of the mobile because the seals of the box was opened by the complainant and the complainant himself broken out the seals of the box in order to check out and look the mobile set. Further more, fault/ defect can occur in any mobile set due to non use according to instructions, due to causes beyond control of human being like lightening, abnormal voltage, act of God, improper testing, operation, maintenance, installation, adjustments, modification etc. It is denied in toto that the display problem occurred in set due to any manufacturing or any fault on the part of answering op. The answering op is not liable to replace or repair the set, if there is any fault the same could be detected and removed by authorized centre only. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 did not appear despite notice and was proceeded against exparte.
4. The complainant produced affidavit of his father Sh. Prem Chand Sethi Ex.CW1 and copy of invoice Ex.C2. Ld. counsel for op no.1 suffered a statement that written statement filed on behalf of op no.1 be read as evidence of op no.1 and he closed the evidence on behalf of op no.1.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. It is proved on record that complainant purchased the mobile in question from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.5000/- on 28.7.2016 as is evident from copy of invoice Ex.C2. The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished affidavit of his father Ex.CW1 wherein he has reiterated all the facts set out in the complaint. The opposite party no.1 has not placed any document in support of its version. Even the op no.1 has not furnished his affidavit in support of his version. The opposite party no.2 has not appeared before this Forum and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Therefore, the pleadings and evidence of complainant qua op no.2 and evidence of the complainant qua op no.1 goes unrebutted and unchallenged. The warranty of the mobile in question was applicable with effect from the date of invoice i.e. 28.7.2016 for one year i.e. same was available up to 27.7.2017. The mobile in question suffered defects in the warranty period and the opposite parties have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant despite the fact that mobile was in warranty period which started from 28.7.2016 i.e. from the date of purchase of mobile in question by the complainant. It cannot be said that warranty of mobile was expired when the complainant approached op no.2. The ops have caused deficiency in service and have adopted unfair maltrade practice towards the complainant.
7. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the mobile in question of the complainant with a new one of same make and model within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the ops shall be liable to refund an amount of Rs.4000/- (Rs.5000-Rs.1000/- on account of depreciation) to the complainant within further period of 15 days. We also direct the ops to pay further amount of Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member President,
Dated:8.12.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
