Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/17/44

Lakhbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Namdhari Watch Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Vikar Kumar,Adv

07 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  44 of 03.08.2017

                                 Date of decision                    :      07.02.2018

 

Lakhbir Singh, son of Sukhdev Singh, resident of House No.C-66, Village Dhumewal, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar  

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Namdhari Watch Co. c/o Pull Bazar Ropar, (PB) through its owner

2. Micromax Service Centre, Branch At SCF-20, Ground Floor, Giani Zail Singh Nagar Market Ropar, through its Manager

3. Head Office, Micromax House, 90-B, Sector-18, Gurgaon, Pin Code-122015, through its Manager

                                                                               ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh.Daljeet Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant 

Sh. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate. counsel for O.P. No.1

Sh.Gagandeep Singh,  Advocate. counsel for O.Ps. No.2&3 

 

ORDER

                                   

Sh. Lakhbir Singh through his counsel has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’) praying for the following reliefs:-

i)       To direct the O.Ps to change the defective mobile or to pay Rs.9500/-

ii)      To pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant along with litigation expenses

 

2.                             The brief facts of the case are that on 12.12.2016, the complainant purchased a mobile set, model No.E471, having IMEI No.911409300652246, manufactured by Micromax Company  from O.P. No.1 for Rs.9500/- vide bill No.124. The said mobile set was purchased by him on EMI through Home Credit Co. and had paid Rs.2601/- as down payment and continuously paying the EMI of the said mobile. At the time of selling of the said mobile, the O.P. No.1 has given assurance that the said mobile is very good mobile phone and had gave one year warranty on the said mobile as provided by the company i.e. OP No.3 and also assured him that if he face the problem then he will be responsible for to get it correct from concerned company. After its purchase, it started creating problems like call drop, battery backup and over heating and said mobile not supporting JIO 4G sim as the mobile is 4G and ring plus vibration mode is not working. It is further stated that when he had approached to the O.P. No.1 and complaint regarding the said problems but OP No.1 prolong the matter on one pretext or the other and finally OP No.1 had send the complainant to the local micromax service centre, branch at SCF-20, Ground Floor, Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Market Ropar, i.e. OP No.2. After observing the said mobile, the official of the service centre told him that the said mobile will be send at Delhi Service Centre for its repair. On asking by the local service centre, he agreed to send his mobile set at Delhi Service Centre and the said mobile was returned to him after repaired by the Delhi Service Centre but said problem in the mobile are still not solved.  He again approached to the local service centre and they had again send the mobile at Delhi but he is still facing the said problems. Hence, this complaint.   

3.                On being put to the notice, the learned counsel for the O.P No.1 have filed written version taking preliminary objections: that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that complainant by totally misstating the facts has filed the present complaint against the answering O.P; that the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased a micromax phone set from his shop. The mobile set was sold in very good condition and complainant before purchase of the same observed its all technical use and after satisfying himself he purchased the mobile set in question and alleged warranty as per manufacture company rule was given to the complainant. The O.P. told him that the service centre will solve the problem if any occurs in warranty period. It is further stated that the complainant about 6-7 months after purchase of the mobile set in question never approached the answering O.P. with alleged complaint and after about 7 months he came to the answering O.P. with alleged complaint and then he was advised by the replying O.P. to go to the service centre of Micromax company, who will attend the complaint of complainant. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof.

4.                    The learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 & 3 has filed written version taking preliminary objections; that  no cause of action as alleged has ever arisen in favour of the complainant and complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands. The complainant has suppressed the relevant facts. On merits, it has been pleaded that there is no defect/manufacturing defect in the mobile hand set and the mobile hand set in question or to be mandatory referred to appropriate testing laboratories at the expenses of the complainant. it has been admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile hand set on 12.12.2016 and approached at the service centre of answering O.Ps. on 10.3.2017 for having the same repaired. The mobile hand set was duly repaired to the complete satisfaction of the complainant and he has duly accepted the repaired hand set without any demur whatsoever. It has been further pleaded that the mobile hand set is electronic devise and is subject to limited warranty and does not include any damage due to ordinary were and tear. All the terms and conditions of the warranty pertaining to the mobile hand set were duly explained to the complainant at the relevant time and complainant admitted/acknowledged the same. The answering O.Ps. through its authorized representative has duly informed the complainant the damage i.e. not covered under the warranty. The complainant was even informed the costs of having the same repaired. The complainant refused to pay legible repairing costs. As a goodwill gesture as without prejudice to the rights of answering O.Ps, offered the complainant to replace his existing mobile hand set in case the same is having defect. However, the complainant refused to fair offer. The O.Ps. is still ready and willing to repair the mobile hand set only in case the mobile hand set is found to be  persisting any defect due to any kind of negligence on behalf of answering O.Ps. and or replace the existing hand set of the complainant with a new one of same model and or value on depositing existing mobile hand set is found to be persisting any defect due to any kind of negligence on behalf of answering O.Ps. Rest of the

5.                    On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C18 and closed the evidence. The proprietor of O.P. No.1 has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. No.2 & 3 has tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Asad Shakeel, authorized representative Ex.OP2/A along with documents Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/3 and closed the evidence .

6.                    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

7.                    Sh. Daljeet Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant argued that complainant Lakhbir Singh, purchased one mobile set from O.P. No.1 of Micromax Company, model No.E471, on 12.12.2016, vide bill No.124.  After the purchase, the mobile set started creating trouble like call drop, battery backup, overheating etc. Complaint was lodged with the O.Ps. but O.Ps. did not pay any heed to his request. Hence, this complaint, with the prayer that old set be replaced with compensation.

8.                    Counsel for the O.P. argued that so far sale/purchase of the mobile set make micromax is admitted and it is also admitted that due to some defect, the purchased mobile set has come to the care centre and the defect was removed. But without coming in length in arguments prayed that in para No.13(2) of reply there is specific recital that if with the working of the purchased hand set, complainant is not satisfied then the O.P. (manufacturer) ready to replace with new set, but today in arguments going ahead, Sh. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate, counsel for O.P. No.2 & 3 prayed that purchased hand set was of Rs.9500/- but the O.P. is ready to deliver new hand set of the cost of Rs.13000/14000/-instead of Rs.9500/- i.e to maintain the reputation of the manufacturer. With this prayer to dismiss the complaint.

9.                    Admitted facts need not to be more discussed because sale/purchase of the mobile set is admitted and within the warranty period, it started creating trouble, then hand set has come to the care centre and again complainant was not satisfied then filed complaint. So, it is a consumer dispute and complaint is maintainable.

10.                  Coming to the real controversy, complainant pleaded for the replacement of the old set with new one with compensation. O.Ps. counsel argued that manufacturer is ready to supply new set above the price charged by the O.P. No.1 from the complainant i.e. not Rs.95,00/- rather of Rs.13000/14000/-. Complainant placed on file some documents and O.Ps. rebutted, but the brief controversy is only qua the working, replacement and compensation.

11.                  After appreciating the facts and arguments, Forum is come to the conclusion that the complaint deserves to be allowed as complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service, which is not denied by the O.Ps. In this way, complainant held entitled as under:-

                       Complaint stands allowed with the directions to the O.Ps. and with liberty to the complainant either to receive new hand set of the same price with compensation of Rs.5000/- or to get new hand set with the price not less than Rs.13000/14000/-. Complainant is directed to deliver the old mobile set to the O.Ps. Qua this option complainant will inform to this Forum within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and then the Forum will further convey without delay through notice to the O.Ps. counsel and on receipt of said information O.Ps. counsel shall be bound to comply the order within 30 days. Under the circumstances, parties are left to bear their own costs”.                       

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

 

                    ANNOUNCED                                                                       (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                    Dated .07.02.2018                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                     (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                                        MEMBER