Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/68

Surinder Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

New Bedi Communication & Institute - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Chaudhary Ashok Singh,Adv.

19 Nov 2015

ORDER

ORDER

                                      MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Surinder Pal 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 issuance of the following directions to them:-

i)       To replace the defective mobile set, 

 ii)     To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.

 

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Micromax Canvas Elanza 2, mobile phone set, for his son, from the O.P. No. 1, for a sum of Rs.9000/- vide invoice/bill No.1382 dated 09.07.2014. After 7/8 months of its purchase, he found that there was some defect in the said mobile set, as such, he approached to the O.P. No.1 and told him regarding the said problem The O.P. No.1 told him that the mobile set would be repaired through the Micromax Care Centre/Service Centre of the O.P. No. 3, which is situated at UNA (HP). Accordingly, he approached the O.P. No. 3 on 27.3.2015 for removal of the defect found in the mobile set, who told him that there was problem in power phone restart/reboots and the same would be repaired within 25 days. The O.P. No. 3 took the mobile set in his possession and issued memo in that regard on 27.3.2015. He approached to the O.P. No. 3, after 25 days, who told him that the mobile set will be handed over to him within 7 days the same was not received back from the company i.e. O.P. No. 2. He again approached the O.P. No. 3, after one week’s period, but it again told him that the said mobile set was not received from the O.P. No. 2. He requested the O.P. No. 3 to give him a new mobile phone as his mobile phone was within guarantee period then the O.P. No.3 assured him that the mobile phone would be returned back within 3-4 days. Thereafter, the O.P. No. 3 returned the phone set to him, saying that the same had been repaired and the problem in it had been totally resolved, therefore, he received back the same, but on the very same day, it again started creating problem as it became hot and applications automatically got lost. Then he again approached the O.P. No. 3, who told him that the mobile set would be returned through the O.P. No. 1. When he approached the O.P. No. 1, then O.P. No. 1 flatly refused to accept his request and hotly argued & misbehaved with him and pushed him out from his shop by using man power and saying that he was not sitting  there only to listen his problem, he had also other work to do. It is further stated that neither the mobile set in question was repaired nor a new mobile set was provided to him by the O.Ps. till fling of the complaint. The aforesaid acts & conduct of the O.Ps. amount to deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice, due to which he has suffered mental agony, physical harassment & financial loss. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                None having appeared on behalf of any of the O.Ps., they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 31.08.2015.

 

4.                 On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant, Ex. CW1, photocopies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the file carefully.

 

6.                The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the mobile set of the complainant, which was purchased by him on 09.07.2015 for a sum of Rs.9,000/- from the O.P. No.1, got defective after eight months of its purchase i.e. within the warranty period. On the suggestion of the O.P. No.1, he took his mobile set for its repair to the O.P. No.3, which is the Service Centre of the manufacture i.e. the O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.3 told him that there was a problem in power phone restarts/re-boots and it would take 25 days to repair the same and had taken the said mobile set in its possession and in lieu of that he issued a job sheet dated 27.3.2015. When after 25 days, he had gone to collect the said mobile set, the said O.P. asked him to come after a week on the pretext that the mobile set was sent to the Company i.e. the O.P. No.2 for its repair, but the same had not been received back yet from the O.P. No.2. Thereafter, the O.P. No.3 handed over the mobile set after its repair, but on the very same day, the said mobile again started giving problem as it became hot and application automatically got lost.  Therefore, he again approached and requested the O.P. No. 3 to do the needful.  However, the O.P. No. 3 told him that the mobile set would be delivered to him through the O.P. No. 1. When he approached the O.P. No.1, he started arguing and misbehaved with him and pushed him out from his shop. The learned counsel further submitted that even after filing of the instant complaint, the O.Ps. have not bothered either to deliver the mobile set in question, after its repair, or to provide a new mobile set to the complainant. The aforesaid acts of the O.Ps. amount to deficiency in service, therefore, the complaint be accepted and the reliefs as sought for in the complaint be awarded.

 

7.                From the copy of the bill dated 09.07.2014 (Ex. C2), it is apparent that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question for a sum of Rs.9,000/ from the O.P. No.1, having warranty of 11 months, as written on the bill itself. From the copy of job sheet dated 27.3.2015 (Ex.C1), it is apparent that the complainant had approached the O.P. No. 3 with the complaint—‘Power phone Restarts/Reboots’ in the said mobile set. As per the allegation of the complainant, on the very same day, the said mobile again started giving problem as it became hot and application automatically got lost, as such, he again handed over the same to the O.P. No. 3 for doing the needful, who told him that after repairs, the mobile set would be delivered to him through the O.P. No.1. However, when he approached the O.P. No.1 to take delivery of the said mobile set, he, instead of delivering him the mobile set, misbehaved with him. In support of the said version, the complainant has filed his duly sworn affidavit (Ex. CW1). The version put forth by the complainant has gone unrebutted, as none of the O.Ps. preferred to appear and contest the case. Therefore, we have no alternative but to accept the version put forth by the complainant. Since neither the O.P. No.1 nor the O.P. No.3 has handed over the mobile set in question after its repairs to the complainant and the O.P. No.1 had misbehaved with the complainant, the said acts of the O.Ps. No. 1 & 3 amount to deficiency in rendering service. It may be stated that the O.P. No.3 is the authorized service centre of Micromax Informatics Ltd. i.e. the manufacturer, O.P. No.2, therefore, it was the duty of the O.P. No.2 to look into the matter as to why its service centre had not returned the mobile set in question to the complainant after its necessary repairs, but even the O.P. No. 2 did nothing into the matter, therefore, the O.P. No.2 is also deficient in providing services. Due to the acts & conduct of the O.Ps., as mentioned above, the complainant was not only deprived of using the mobile set in question, which is a basic necessity nowadays, but he has also suffered a great mental agony & inconvenience. As the O.Ps. have failed to return the mobile set in question to the complainant after its repair till date, therefore, we are of the considered view that the O.Ps. are not only liable to deliver a new mobile set of the same model/make, free from any defect, to the complainant, but are also liable to pay compensation & litigation expenses to him.

 

8.                In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint against all the O.Ps., who are directed as under:-

i)       To deliver a new mobile set of the same make/model, having fresh warranty, to the complainant,

ii)      To pay Rs.3000/- as compensation,

iii)     To pay Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses,

 

          The O.Ps. are further directed to comply with the above said directions,  jointly & severally, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which they shall refund the sale price of the mobile set in question, i.e. Rs.9000/-  to the complainant, alongwith compensation & litigation expenses, as directed above.

9.                       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 & consigned to Record Room.

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated:  19.11.2015                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                     MEMBER.