| ORDER | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR. Consumer Complaint No. 649 of 2015 Date of Institution: 02.11.2015 Date of Decision : 27.04.2016 Arun Kumar son of Sh.Ramsewak Parshad, resident of House No. 1042/3, Kapoora Gali, Near Pipli Sahib Gurdwara Putlighar, Amrtsiar. Complainant Versus - M/s.Amritsar Mobile Centre, Hall Bazar, Amritsar through its Prop/ Partner/ Person to receive the summons.
- M/s.Perfect Mobile repair Center, Shop No. 19-20, Simran Plaza Queens Road, Amritsar through its Prop/ Partner/ authorized representative to receive the summons.
- M/s.Customer Care Cell Intex Technologies Phase II, New Delhi through its Prop/ Partner/ Manager/ Person to receive the summons.
Opposite Parties Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Present: For the Complainant: In person. For Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate For Opposite Parties No.2 and 3: Exparte Coram Sh.S.S.Panesar, President Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member Sh.Anoop Sharma, Member Order dictated by: Sh.S.S. Panesar, President. - Sh.Arun Kumar has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that he purchased one mobile Intex Aqua Amaze IMEI No. 911404250020197 from Opposite Party No.1 vide bill No. 3380 dated 9.11.2014 for a sum of Rs.11,000/- and availed the services of Opposite Party No.1, thus the complainant is consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and is fully competent to file the present complaint against Opposite Parties. After purchase immediately after three months, the Mobile Set has become out of order and the same was given for repair in the service centre of Opposite Party No.2. However, Opposite Party No.2 returned the Mobile Set after repair, but however, it worked only for four days and thereafter the Mobile Set again given for repair on 27.7.2015 with Opposite Party No.2, but Opposite Party No.2 stated that it can not be repaired nor the same can be put on in working conditions and it requires replacement with new one. Since then the Mobile Set in dispute is lying with Opposite Party No.2, hence the complainant has been deprived of his legal rights for not using the Mobile Set in dispute inspite of spending Rs.11,000/- on it and the complainant made several requests, visits with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, but they have refused to accept the genuine request of the complainant. The complainant also demanded Rs.11,000/-, but the Opposite Parties failed to refund the same nor replaced the Mobile Set in dispute with new one. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and therefore, the complainant claims compensation of Rs.20,000/- for harassment and mental tension. Hence this complaint.
- Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 despite proper service, so Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte. However, on 6.4.2016 Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 and filed an application to join the proceedings at that stage and he was allowed to join the proceedings at that stage.
- However, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, so Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte.
- In his bid to prove the case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of service request Ex.C3 and closed his evidence.
- At this stage, Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate counsel for Opposite Party No.1 suffered a statement that Opposite Party No.1 is only a selling dealer and has no liability for any defect arising in the handset to provide after sale service and he does not want to lead any evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.1.
- We have heard the complainant as well as ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
- From the appraisal of evidence on record, it transpires that complainant purchased Mobile Set in dispute on 9.11.2014 from Opposite Party No.1 vide bill, copy whereof account for Ex.C2 on record. The mobile hand set in dispute was left with Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Authorised Service Centre for its repair on 27.7.2015 vide Ex.C3 and since then, the Mobile Set in dispute was being repaired there & no repairs have been effected. It is the case of the complainant that he was told by Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Authorised Service Centre that Mobile Set in dispute was beyond the scope of repair and he should apply for getting either refund or replacement of the Mobile Set in dispute, from the manufacturer. The evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record. The defect in the Mobile Set in dispute, if any, was to be rectified by Opposite Party No.3-Authorised Service Centre while Opposite Party No.2 being manufacturer was responsible if the refund of the price of the Mobile Set in dispute was required to be made, but however, in this case, no manufacturing defect has been proved by the complainant. Simple fact that the complainant once approached Opposite Party No.3-Authorised Service Centre for repair of the Mobile Set in dispute which retained the Mobile Set in dispute till date, is no proof of the fact that Mobile Set in dispute was beyond the scope of repairs or same was having some manufacturing defect. No expert report has been adduced by the complainant to prove that fact. In such a situation, in our considered opinion, the complainant is entitled for repair of the Mobile Set in dispute and Opposite Party No.3-Authorised Service Centre is given 3 months time for getting the defect of the Mobile Set in dispute removed, to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, no case for grant of compensation/ costs is made out & prayer to that effect stands declined. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum Dated : 27.4.2016 (S.S.Panesar ) President hrg (Anoop Sharma) (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) Member Member | |
