Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/16/31

Parminder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Luxmi Commmunications & Others - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Varinder Kumar, adv.

19 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                                Consumer Complaint No: 31 of 08.07.2016

                                                 Date of decision            :19.12.2016

 

 

Parminder Singh, aged about 27 years, son of Sh. Jagtar Singh, resident of House No.4, Street No.1, Malohtra Colony, Ropar, Tehsil & District Ropar.  

                                                                                      ……Complainant

1.       M/s Luxmi Communications SCF No.78, Ist Floor, Phase-2, SAS Nagar Mohali, Service Centre through its Proprietor.   

2.       Bhagwati Products Limited Plot No.18, Sector 2 NIE Pant Nagar, Rudrapur I. S Nagar Uttrakhand through its M.D. 

3.       Blue Dot Courier Service SCO No.123, Near Markfed Office Gaini Zail Singh Nagar, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.

4.       Cloudtail Private Limited Unit No.1, Kewat Khata No.373/400, Mustatil No.31, Village Taoru, Tehsil Taoru District Mewat Bilaspur Tarou Road, Mewat.   

  

                                                                                      …..Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          QUORUM

                                                SMT. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                                                SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

          ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Varinder Kumar, Advocate, counsel for complainant

Opposite Parties No.1,2 & 4 ex-parte

Name of the O.P. No.3 stands deleted vide order dated 4.11.2016 

 

ORDER

                                                SMT. NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT  

 

                             Sh. Parminder Singh, has filed this complaint under Section 12       of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’         only) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.). praying for issuance of the following directions to it:-

          1.                To replace the mobile set in question with the new one or to                               refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.6999/-

          2.                To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental                                 agony and physical harassment suffered by him.

          3.                To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

 

2.                          In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 22.9.2015, he purchased online a mobile set make YU5010 buffed steel 16 GB IMEI No.911436256058946 from O.P. No.4 manufactured by O.P. No.2. The mobile set was delivered to him through blue dart courier service i.e. O.P. No.3, it worked properly only for two months after its purchase and thereafter its speaker and lock got defective and it used to hang. He lodged a complaint with the customer care for removal of the defects of his mobile and it was told to visit the service centre at Mohali. Accordingly, on 26.2.2016, he visited the service centre at Mohali for repair of his mobile set, its officials kept his mobile set and told him to come after one month. After one month, he telephonically called up the service centre and he was informed that his mobile set is still under repair and will be handed over to him after another one month. Even after lapse of that period, O.P No.1 did not hand over his mobile set. On 3.5.2016, he sent an e-mail to the O.P. No.1, he was told to collect his mobile set within 10 days. In the end of May, after receipt of telephonic call from O.P. No.1, he visited it to collect his mobile set. However, after using the mobile set, he came to know that even after repairs, his mobile set was not working properly and problem still persisted. He again contacted the officials of the O.P. No.1 at Mohali, instead of giving any satisfactory reply, they misbehaved with him. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                                   None having put an appearance on behalf of O.Ps. No.1,2 & 4, they have proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.10.2016. The name of the O.P. No.3 stands deleted vide order dated 04.11.2016.

 

4.                                                      We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record file, carefully.

 

5.                                   From the retail invoice dated 22.9.2015, Ex.C1, it is evident that complainant purchased the mobile set in question from O.P. No.4 for a sum of Rs.6999/-. From the copy of Job sheet dated 26.2.2016, Ex.C4, it is apparent that when the complainant handed over his mobile set for its repair to the O.P. No.4, it was within warranty. Even after repair by the O.P. No.1, the problem still persisted, when he again approached the O.P. No.1 for its repair, its officials misbehaved with him. Since the mobile set was got defect within the warranty, therefore, same should have been repaired by the service centre free of cost but by not doing so, O.P. No.1 has committed deficiency in service, therefore, O.Ps. be directed either to replace the same with the new one or to refund a sum of Rs.6999/- i.e. cost of his mobile set. They be also directed to pay compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him along with cost of litigation. The allegation of the complainant has not been rebutted by the O.Ps. as they preferred not to appear before this Forum despite of service, as such. Adverse inference can be drawn against the O.Ps. that they have nothing to say against the allegations leveled by the complainant.

          As the mobile set of the complainant got defective within warranty period, it should have been repaired, free of cost by the O.P. No.1. But by not doing so, it has committed deficiency in service. It may be stated that in present days, having a mobile set is a basic necessity and due to non repair of the mobile set in question by the O.P. No.1, complainant has been deprived of its use, therefore, the O.P. No.1 is liable to compensate the complainant. As such, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case, where the cost of the said mobile set in question is refunded to the complainant. He is also entitled to get compensation on account to mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him along with cost of litigation. Since the service centre i.e. O.P. No.1 has not repaired the mobile set of the complainant, therefore, O.P. No.2 being manufacturer is vicariously liable for the act and conduct of its service centre i.e. O.P. No.1. Thus, we do not hesitate to conclude that O.P.No.2 is also liable to compensate the complainant along with O.P. No.1. So far as the liability of the O.P. No.4 is concerned. It may be stated that the complainant has averred that he has purchased the mobile set in question from O.P. No.4. Neither any specific allegation has been leveled against the said O.P. by the complainant nor it has been proved, as such, no liability can be fastened against the O.P. No.4, thus, the complaint filed against it is liable to be dismissed.     

6.                       In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint                     against the O.P. No.4 and allow the same against the O.Ps. No.1 & 2.                      The O.Ps. No.1 & 2 are directed in the following manner:-

1.                To refund a sum of Rs.6999/- i.e. the price of the mobile set in question.

2.                To pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment.

3.                To pay Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation.

                                      The O.Ps. No.1 & 2 are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly and severally within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.  

7.                          The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file indexed & consigned to the Record Room. 

 

ANNOUNCED                                                     (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated: 19.12.2016                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                          (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                              MEMBER.