BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.548-14

Date of Institution:16-10-2014

Date of Decision:15-04-2015  

Arvind Kumar son of Ram Dayal, resident of 110, Gali No.4, New Jawahar Nagar, Phase II, New Sai Baba Mandir, Batala Road, Amritsar, Punjab-143001.

Complainant

Versus

1. M/s.Cell Hutt, Mr.Dinesh Maheshwari, 202, 2^nd Floor, Sun Rise Plaza, Cooper Road, Amritsar.
2. M/s.Mobile Links, 23-24-B, Liberty Market Basement, Railway Link Road, Amritsar.
3. Jaina Marketing & Associates, D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi-110011.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: In person.

              For the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3: Sh.Sanjeet Singh, Adv.

              For the Opposite Party No.2: Exparte.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Arvind Kumar under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased a Mobile Set Karboon A6 New IMEI No.911304157991104/ 911304157991112 (containing Mobile Battery Charger and Headphones) from Opposite Party No.2 vide bill No. 4863 dated 27.2.2014 with one year warranty. Opposite Party No.1 is the service centre of the company. Complainant alleges that after passing 5 days, the Mobile Set in question started giving some trouble in the operation and the WI-FI and Bluetooth were not working and on 7.3.2014, the Mobile Set in question was handed over to Opposite Party No.1 i.e. the service centre of the company. Opposite Party No.1 issued receipt vide memo No. 17749 dated 7.3.2014 and returned the same in evening saying that it is now OK, but the Mobile Set in question was still persisting same problem. Again the complainant handed over the Mobile Set in question to Opposite Party No.1 on 10.3.2014 against receipt vide Mo No. 18003 dated 10.3.2014 and the Opposite Party No.1 told the complainant to come after 20 to 25 days. As per the assurance of Opposite Party No.1, the complainant visited the Opposite Party No.1, but the problem in the Mobile Set in question was not resolved. After so many visits, the Opposite Party No.1 handed over the Mobile Set in question to the complainant on 14.6.2014. Again the complainant handed over the Mobile Set in question to Opposite Party No.1 on 24.6.2014 against receipt vide memo No. 21617 dated 24.6.2014 and till date, it is lying with the Opposite Party No.1. The complainant requested the Opposite Party No.1 to replace the Mobile Set in question, but they refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant.    Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties either to change the Mobile Set in question or return its price. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the Mobile Set of the complainant is  repaired and the same was lying with the Opposite Party No.1 and the same was called many times to the complainant to collect his repaired Mobile Set, but the complainant is not ready to listen the Opposite Parties and every time threatened the Opposite Parties  to file the complaint before this Hon’ble Forum. After that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 also offered him the new Mobile Set, but the complainant again refused to take the new Mobile Set.  While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. None appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2, so Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.12.2014 of this Forum.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. Opposite Parties No.1 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sahil Arora Ex.Op1/1 and affidavit of Sh.Ajay Kumar Ex.OP3/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the complainant and  ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 3.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased a Mobile Set Karboon A6 New from Opposite Party No.2 vide Invoice  dated 27.2.2014 for Rs.4400/- Ex.C4. As per the version of the complainant, said Mobile Set became defective after 5 days from the date of its purchase. The WI-FI and Bluetooth were not working. The complainant handed over the Mobile Set in question to Opposite Party No.1 i.e. the authorized service centre of the company on 7.3.2014 vide memo No. 17749 dated 7.3.2014 and they handed over the Mobile Set in question to the complainant after repair, but the same problems were still persisting and the complainant again handed over the Mobile Set in question to Opposite Party No.1 on 10.3.2014 vide job sheet Ex.C3 and the Opposite Party No.1 told the complainant  to visit after 20-25 days. Then the complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 accordingly, but Opposite Party No.1 submitted that problem was being  not resolved. However, they handed over the Mobile Set in question to the complainant on 14.6.2014 after 94 days. Again the complainant handed over the Mobile Set in question to Opposite Party No.1 on 24.6.2014 vide job sheet Ex.C2. Since then, the Mobile Set in question is lying with Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 neither repaired the Mobile Set in question nor replaced the same with new one.
8. Whereas the case of Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 is that Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 are ready to replace the Mobile Set of the complainant with new one of same make and model and in this regard, ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 got recorded his statement that Opposite Parties  are ready to tender new Mobile Set with full warranty to the complainant. Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 also through their written version submitted that ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 3  had given offer to the complainant at bar that they were ready to hand over the new Mobile Set of same make and model to the complainant.    
9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the Mobile Set of the complainant is lying with Opposite Party No.1 since 24.6.2014 which was deposited by the complainant to Opposite Party No.1 vide job sheet Ex.C2 and the Opposite Party No.1 could not repair the same. All this fully proves that the Mobile Set of the complainant is not repairable and ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 have got recorded their statement on 31.12.2014 that Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 are ready to replace the Mobile Set of the complainant with new one of same make and model with full warranty.
10. Resultantly, this complaint is disposed of with the directions to Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 to replace the Mobile Set of the complainant with new one of same make and model within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 are also directed to pay the costs of litigation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.1000/-.     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.

Dated: 15-04-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                 (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)    (Anoop Sharma)

              Member                         Member