DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 539-14
Date of Institution : 14.10.2014
Date of Decision : 9.3.2015
Harsimran Singh S/o Charanjit Singh R/o 6-Gopal Nagar,Majitha Road,Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
M/s.Hi-Tech Fones, 29,First Floor,Nehru Shopping Complex, Lawrence Road, Amritsar
M/s. Micromax House Pascos Building 90-B,Sector 18,Gurgaon, Haryana 122015
M/s.Perfect Mobile Repair Centre, Shop No. 19-20, Simran Plaza Market, 210-A, Queens Road,Amritsar
....Opp.parties
Complaint: under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : Sh. J.S. Sachdeva,Adv
For the opposite party No.1 : Sh. Amandeep Sharma,Adv.
For opposite parties No.2 & 3 :Ex-parte
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President,
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa,Member & Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member
-2-
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1. Present complaint has been filed by Harsimran Singh under the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased a Smartphone mobile hand set from opposite party No.1 vide invoice No. 945 dated 7.8.2013. According to the complainant after about 4-5 months of the use of the mobile, its battery became dead. The complainant reported the matter to the service centre i.e. opposite party No.3, where opposite party No.3 replaced the battery after about 10 days. Then complainant observed that the touch screen was not functioning property. The complainant again reported the matter to opposite party No.3 on 4.7.2014 and it was assured by the opposite party No.3 that touch penal would be replaced from head office and it would be take about 10 days. But the mobile phone could not be delivered to the complainant for more than one month despite repeated visits. Finally on 22.8.2014 complainant received a call that the phone was ready to be delivered to the complainant. But when complainant approached opposite party No.3 and on inspection it was found that the camera and back panel of the phone was also found broken. Complainant brought these facts to the notice of opposite party No.3, who assured that they would send back the phone to the company for replacement. Thereafter complainant made several visits to opposite parties but they refused to either replace the mobile phone or to make it effectively
-3-
functioning and the mobile phone has been kept by opposite party No.3 since 4.7.2014. Alleging the same to the deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking direction to the opposite parties to return the amount of Rs. 9500/- alongwith interest @ 15% p.a from the date of purchase till date of payment. Compensation of Rs. 25000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that they are only dealer and not manufacturer or service station of the mobile in question and as such the replying opposite party has nothing to do with this. It was submitted that only the manufacturer are liable for repair or replacement , if any to the complainant.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1,photographs Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4, job sheets Ex.C-5, bill Ex.C-6.
4. Opposite party No.1 tendered affidavit of Sh.Anoop Bhatia Ex.OP1/1.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsels for the complainant and opposite party No.1 and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsels for both the parties.
6. From the record and the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties ,it is clear that complainant purchased the Micromax mobile set from the opposite party No.1 vide invoice dated 7.8.2013 Ex.C-6 for Rs.
-4-
9500/-. The complainant alleges that after use of 4-5 months the battery of the mobile phone became dead. The matter was reported to opposite party No.3, authorized service centre. The battery was replaced by opposite party No.3, Thereafter the touch screen of the mobile set became un-functional. Again the mobile set was handed over to opposite party No.3 on 4.7.2014 vide job sheet Ex.C-5, but the opposite party could neither repair the mobile set nor return the same to the complainant .Finally on 22.8.2014 the complainant received phone call
from opposite party No.3 that the mobile set was ready for delivery to the complainant. Resultantly the complainant went to opposite party No.3 and on inspection of the mobile phone set, it was found that the back panel of the phone was found broken. The camera was also not working. In this regard complainant produced photographs of the mobile phone Ex.C-2 to Ex. C-4. So the complainant did not receive the mobile phone from opposite party No.3. Then the opposite party No.3 told the complainant and also in writing that the mobile set after repair would be handed over to the complainant after 15 days. But thereafter the opposite party did not hand over the mobile set to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite party No.1 is that he is only the dealer and has sold the mobile set to the complainant. The opposite party No.2 ,manufacturer
-5-
as well as its service centre, opposite party No.3 are to do the repair work of the mobile set under the warranty. As such opposite party No.1 is nothing to do with the mobile set of the complainant.
8. Whereas counsel for opposite party No.2 got recorded his statement in the court on 12.12.2014 that opposite party No.2, manufacturer of the mobile set is ready to swap the new mobile of the same model or upgrade model subject to return of original job sheet, bill alongwith mobile accessories in possession of the complainant, within 30 days.
9. From the perusal of the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the mobile set of the complainant became defective and the mobile set was produced by the complainant before opposite party No.3, authorized service centre of Micromax Mobile Phone for the first time on 4.7.2014 i.e. after about 8 months from the date of purchase. The said mobile set could not be repaired by the opposite party as is evident from this job sheet Ex.C-5 dated 4.7.2014 and also from the photographs of the mobile set produced by the complainant Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 that is why the counsel for opposite party No.2 got recorded his statement that opposite party No.2 is ready to swap /replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make and model or upgrade model subject to return of original job sheet , bill and other mobile accessories in possession of the complainant.
-6-
10. Resultantly this complaint is disposed of with the direction to the complainant to return the original job sheet, original bill alongwith mobile accessories, if any, in possession of the complainant, to the counsel for opposite party No.2, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the copy of orders and the opposite party No.2 is directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make and model or upgrade model within 30 days from the date of receipt of job sheet, original bill and other mobile accessories, if any, of the mobile set from the complainant; whereas the mobile set is already with opposite party No.3 .Opposite parties No.2 & 3 are also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 1000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
11. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy
pendency of the cases in this Forum.
9.3.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
