Haryana

Karnal

72/2012

Ravi Partap Rana S/o Dharam Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Shri Nath Ji Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Parshant Pahwa

17 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                          Complaint No.72 of 2012

                                                          Date of instt.: 6.02.2012

                                                          Date of decision:17.12.2015

 

Ravi Partap Rana son of Sh.Dharam Pal resident of House No.203, Bank Colony, Sector -9, Karnal.

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                   Vs.

 

1.M/s Shri Nath Ji communications, SCO No.8, G.F.Floor, Nehru Palace, near Head Post office, Karnal.

2.Nokia India Pvt.Ltd.SP Indocity Industrial Plot No.243, Udyog Vikas, Phase-I, Dduderhea ,Gurgaon 122016.

                                                                  …..Opposite Parties.

 

                    Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Smt. Shashi Sharma……….Member.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-        Sh.Parshant Pahwa Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Amish Goel Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

                   Opposite Party No.2 ex parte.

ORDER:

 

                        This  complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986,  on the averments that he purchased second hand  Nokia  mobile set model N-86 bearing  EMIE No. 354203037423789 .  At the time of purchase,  mobile set was within  warranty  period and he got extended the warranty of the same.  In the  first week of November, 2011,problem developed in the mobile set and on inspection by the officials of the  Opposite Party No.1, he was told that flax was damaged and  for replacement of same an amount of Rs.1799/- was got deposited from him, vide  bill NO.939 dated 10.11.2011.  On the next day, when he approached the officials of Opposite party No.1, for taking the mobile set, he was told that the flax  was  OK and there was moisture, therefore, they refused to repair the set.  On  that, he asked the Opposite party No.1 to return the amount of Rs.1799/-, but the Opposite party No.1  refused to refund the amount or replace the mobile set. Such act on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 amounted to deficiency in services, which caused mental harassment to the complainant apart from financial loss.

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite party no.1 put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has got no loucs standi and cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complaint is not legally maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and that the  present complaint is an abuse of the process of law.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that  mobile set of the complainant was not found defective rather the same was found damaged.  The damaged part does not fall within the warranty terms and conditions, because the damage was due to fault of the complainant.  After changing the flax, the complainant requested the Opposite party No. 1 to send the mobile set to  the office of Opposite party No. 2 to get checked the same and accordingly the mobile set was sent to Opposite party No.2, who reported that there was liquid damage also. It has been admitted that amount of Rs.1799/- was charged from the complainant  for replacing the damaged flax. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

                   None put into appearance on behalf of the Opposite Party no.2 despite service, therefore, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against it vide order dated 12.3.2012.

3.                 In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 have been tendered.

4.                 On the other hand, no evidence has been led by the Opposite Party No.1.

 

5.                 We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

6.                 There is no dispute between the parties that  mobile set of the complainant was within warranty period when he had taken the same  to  the Opposite party No.1 for repairs. The service job sheet Ex.C3 shows that key pad, volume keypad plus N minus not working. MMNU key closing, FM transmeter in camera-video recording not properly working- WIFI receiver not working properly. According to the complainant the mobile set was not repaired  by the Opposite party No.1, though the sum of Rs.1799/- was received from him for that purpose. On the other hand, the Opposite party No.1  has asserted that damaged flax of the  mobile set  was replaced, but for other repairs, the mobile set  was sent to Opposite party No.2 on the request of the complainant and the Opposite party No.2 told that there was liquid damage, therefore, repairs could not be done. 

7.                          In the service job sheet Ex.C3, it was mentioned that  the mobile set was subject to technical verification for liquid  logged and tampering of handset.  If Opposite party No.2 found that there was liquid damage to the mobile set, then certainly, the information to the Opposite party No.1 would have been given in writing, but no such writing has been placed on the file for the reasons best known to the Opposite party No.1. Mere pleading of the Opposite Party No.1 in this regard cannot take place of proof. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that Opposite party No.1 had sent the mobile set to the Opposite party No.2 and thereafter Opposite party No.2 informed that there was liquid damage to  the mobile set and as such the same could not be repaired.   As the defects in the mobile set occured  well within the period of warranty, it was the duty of the Opposite parties to remove those defects or if the defects were not repairable, then  replace the mobile set of the complainant, but  they refused to repair or replace the same merely on the allegation that there was liquid damage which is not proved. Thus, there was deficiency in services on the part of the Opposite parties.

 

8.                           As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Opposite parties to repair the   mobile set of the complainant and if the defects are not repairable, then replace the mobile set with a new one of the same model and value.  The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.2200/- for the mental agony and harassment caused to him and for the litigation expenses. The  Opposite Parties shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:17.12.2015                                                                      

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )  (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

    Member             Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:-        Sh.Parshant Pahwa Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Amish Goel Advocate for OP No.1.

                   OP No.2 ex parte.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly land the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced
dated:17.12.2015                                                                      

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )  (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

    Member             Member.