Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Sh.Ravi Kant Aggarwal has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  the complainant purchased a Mobile Set from Opposite Party No.1 after watching the tempting and fascinating advertisement by Home.18 of Spice Mobile Model X-Life 350 on 13.5.2016 for Rs.2148/- (including shipping chares of Rs.149/-) vide order no. 993218915 which was delivered on 16.5.2016 alongwith bill of M/s.Tarash Overseas Private Limited, vide Bill No.TARA/16-17/139573 dated 13.5.2016. That the mobile received by the complainant started mis-functioning within two months of purchase and the complainant visited the local service station i.e. Opposite Party  No.4 at Amritsar they led that there is minor problem in the Mobile Set  and led to change of settings which sought the issue temporarily for about 15 days. Finally Mobile Set  of the complainant stopped functioning and got dead on 22.1.2017 and the complainant again visited Opposite Party  No.4 for the necessary action for the working of the Mobile Set  and Opposite Party  No.4  repaired the Mobile Set  and charged Rs.200/- illegally despite being phone in warranty period of one year and the staff of the Opposite Party  No.4 told the complainant that the Mobile Set  is causing frequent issues due to some manufacturing defects and phone purchased is of low quality made with cheap components being low price phone.  Due to deficiency in service and illegal act on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant suffered a  lot in his profession.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties may kindly be directed to replace the defective Mobile Set or refund the amount of the Mobile Set and Rs.200/- charged by Opposite Party  No.4.

b)      Opposite Parties may kindly be directed to pay compensation of Rs.25000/- to the complainant for committing Unfair Trade Practice, deficiency in service  and also causing mental pain, agony, harassment and inconvenience  to the complainant.

c)       The cost of the complaint alongwith litigation expenses and counsel fee to the tune of Rs.15000/- may also be awarded  to the complainant.

d)      Any other appropriate order which this forum deems fit in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly acts of Unfair Trade Practice committed by the Opposite Parties may also be passed.

e)       Any other relief which the complainant is found entitled under law and equity may also be awarded to the complainant.   

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.1 ,2 & 4, hence Opposite Parties No. 1, 2 and 4 were proceeded against exparte.  However, at later stage Sh.Sumit Chaudhary, representative of the Opposite Party  No.4 appeared  and made statement before this Forum. But however,  due to non availability of address of Opposite Party No.3, it is ordered that name of the Opposite Party No.3  be deleted from the array of the Opposite Parties.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2  to Ex.C5  and closed his evidence.

4.       We have heard the complainant and Sh.Sumit Chaudhary, representative appeared on behalf of Opposite Party  No.4 and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

5.       The complainant has submitted his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and averred that  he purchased a Mobile Set from Opposite Party No.1 after watching the tempting and fascinating advertisement by Home.18 of Spice Mobile Model X-Life 350 on 13.5.2016 for Rs.2148/- (including shipping chares of Rs.149/-) vide order no. 993218915 which was delivered on 16.5.2016 alongwith bill of M/s.Tarash Overseas Private Limited, vide Bill No.TARA/16-17/139573 dated 13.5.2016, copy of bill accounts for Ex.C3. It is further averred that  mobile received by the complainant started mis-functioning within two months of purchase and the complainant visited the local service station i.e. Opposite Party  No.4 at Amritsar they led that there is minor problem in the Mobile Set  and led to change of settings which sought the issue temporarily for about 15 days. Finally Mobile Set  of the complainant stopped functioning and got dead on 22.1.2017 and the complainant again visited Opposite Party  No.4 for the necessary action for the working of the Mobile Set  and Opposite Party  No.4  repaired the Mobile Set  and charged Rs.200/-, (copy of receipt accounts for Ex.C3),  illegally despite being phone in warranty period of one year and the staff of the Opposite Party  No.4 told the complainant that the Mobile Set  is causing frequent issues due to some manufacturing defects and phone purchased is of low quality made with cheap components being low price phone.  Due to deficiency in service and illegal act on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant suffered a  lot in his profession.

6.       On the other hand, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.1, 2 & 4, hence Opposite Parties No. 1, 2 and 4 were proceeded against exparte.  However, at later stage Sh.Sumit Chaudhary, representative of the Opposite Party  No.4 appeared  and made statement before this Forum. However,  due to non availability of address of Opposite Party No.3, it is ordered that name of the Opposite Party No.3  be deleted from the array of the Opposite Parties. Sh.Sumit Chaudhary, proprietor of Opposite Party  No.4 made statement that the company is ready to replace the Mobile Set  in question of the complainant with a new one of the same make and brand within one month from the date of statement.  On the other hand, the complainant has argued that due to non functioning of the Mobile Set  in question, he suffered a lot and he was compelled to file the instant complaint by spending huge amount. Not only this, he also served legal notice upon the Opposite Parties, copy of the same accounts for Ex.C4, but the Opposite Parties are lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and the complainant  has sought for compensation of Rs.25,000/- besides Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses. But however, the claim for compensation and litigation expenses  to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.15,000/-  is concerned, the same appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant.

7.       In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Opposite Parties No.1,2 and 4  to replace the Mobile Set  in question with new one of same make and model.  In our considered view, ends of justice would  be fully met if the complainant is awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- and we award the same accordingly. Besides this, the complainant is also entitled to litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2000/-. Opposite Parties No.1, 2 and 4 are  granted one month time to comply with the order, failing which  the complainant would have a right to get this order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum. The complaint against Opposite Party No.3 stands dismissed. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 20.06.2017.