BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                            

Rajiv Sharma son of late Sh. Desh Raj Sharma, resident of House No. 80, Rally Village, Sector-12A, Panchkula.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

1. New Light Communications, Booth No. 82, Sector 15, Panchkula through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Ranvir Mobile Solution, H. No. 462, Near Truck Union, Main Bajar-Abhey Pur Village, Panchkula through its Prop./Owner.
3. M/s Jaina Marketing & Associates, C-170, Okhla, Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110-020.

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr. S.P. Attri, Member.

For the Parties:     Complainant in person.

Mr. Deepesh Mehta, authorized representative for

OP no. 1.

Mr. Ankush Gupta, Advocate for Ops no. 2 & 3.

ORDER

(Dharampal, President)

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that on 14.01.2014 complainant purchased a Karbonn-SI Brand, IMEI/ESN 1 : 911305350739810 – IMEI/ESN 2 : 911305350739828 vide bill/cash memo no. 3441 dated 14.01.2014 (Annexure C-1) from OP no. 1.  In the month of September, 2014 some problem in the touch screen occurred. Complainant approached OP no. 1 about the problem and OP no. 1 advised  the complainant to approach authorized service centre i.e. OP no. 2.  On 29.09.2014 the complainant’s wife approached the OP no. 2 who kept the phone of complainant vide service job sheet bearing no. 1957 dated 29.09.2014 (Annexure C-2) and advised her to collect the phone after a week.  Complainant approached the Ops no. 1 & 2 time and again to collect the phone but to no avail.  One day OP no. 2 informed the complainant that the mobile phone had been sent to the company i.e. OP no. 3 for its replacement and the same would be given to him on receipt from OP no. 3.  On 09.12.2014, OP no. 3 contacted the complainant telephonically and offered another mobile phone cost of which in the market was Rs.6200/- but the complainant refused to accept the offer and requested it to ex-change the mobile phone of the same standard & of the same price. But OP no. 3 declined the request of the complainant and advised to wait for some time. The complainant approached many times to Ops no. 1 & 2 who advised him to wait for the receipt of replaced mobile phone from OP no. 3. The complainant facing many problems due to non repair/replacement of mobile phone and also no other cell phone was given by the Ops for use. This act and conduct on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
2. The OP No.1 appeared and filed written statement.  It is submitted that the warranty would be provided by the authorized service centre.  It is submitted that OP no. 1 performed its duty to inform the customer about the address and name of the authorized service centre.  It is submitted that OP no. 1 had no dealing with Ops no. 2 & 3 as OP no. 1 was not the authorized service provider.  It is submitted that the OP no. 1 is not liable either to return or replace the handset as no such authority was provided by OP no. 3.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The OPs No. 2 & 3 appeared and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the customer namely Seema visited authorized service centre i.e. OP no. 2 and deposited the mobile set of S-I bearing EMEI No. 911305350739810-911305350739828 for the problem of touch.  It is submitted that job sheet was issued to the customer and problem in touch was rectified by the OP no. 2 but the customer was adamant to replace the same with new one.  It is submitted that OP no. 2 informed the customer that he was not authorized for replacement and the customer requested the OP no. 2 for sending the mobile set to OP no. 3.  It is submitted that the OP no. 2 had sent the mobile to OP no. 3 on the request of the customer.  It is submitted that the OP no. 3 had provided the new mobile phone to OP no. 2 for replacement of the mobile set to the customer.  It is submitted that OP no. 2 informed the complainant for taking delivery of the new mobile set but the complainant refused to take the delivery of the same and demanded the refund amount after using the mobile for a period of nine month.   Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No. 2 & 3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 & C-2 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the authorized representative for OP No.1 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R1/A alongwith documents Annexure R1/1 and closed the evidence. Counsel for the Ops no. 2 & 3 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure OP2/A alongwith documents Annexure OP2/1 & OP2/2 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard complainant appearing in person, authorized representative for the OP no. 1 and learned counsel for the Ops No. 2 & 3 and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
6. The sale of a Karbonn-SI Brand, IMEI/ESN 1 : 911305350739810 – IMEI/ESN 2 : 911305350739828 vide bill/cash memo no. 3441 dated 14.01.2014 (Annexure C-1) from the Op No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 8200/- is admitted.
7. The main grouse of the complainant is that from the very next day, the mobile hand set started giving problem in touch screen and the same was deposited with Op No.2 vide job sheet dated 29.09.2014 (Annexure C-2) and the same was admitted by the Op No.2 in its written statement. The complainant approached the Op No.2 to collect his mobile phone who informed that the mobile phone had been sent to the company i.e. Op No.3 for replacement and thereafter, the Op No.3 approached the complainant telephonically and offered new mobile phone. But the complainant refused to accept the same on the ground that the mobile phone offered to the complainant is not same standard & of the same price and requested to ex-change the mobile of the same price. The Op No.3 admitted in their written statement that they provided new mobile phone to the customer. But they failed to place on record any document to prove that they offered the mobile phone of same standard and of the same price. The Op No.2 admitted in its written statement that mobile phone was sent to OP No.3 for replacement and the complainant was offered for new mobile phone.
8. In the present complaint, the complainant has rightly prayed for refund of the amount paid towards the cost of hand set as he was deprived of its usage inspite of spending such a handsome amount for the purchase of the hand set. Moreover, the Ops offered to exchange handset with new mobile phone to the complainant was due to manufacturing defect in the handset which clearly proved the deficiency in service on their part.
9. Evidently the complainant had spent the money for the purchase of brand new mobile handset to facilitate himself but not for moving to the service center and then this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the Ops. Even the defects in the mobile handset on the very next day of its purchase, makes pointer towards the poor quality of the product. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
10. In the light of above observations, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint deserves to succeed against the Ops and the same is allowed. The Ops jointly and severely directed as under:-
    1. To refund of Rs.8,200/- being the cost of the mobile hand set in question to the complainant alongwith @ 9% interest per annum from the date of purchase till realization.
    2. To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony, physical harassment and cost of litigation.
11. This order be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced

07.09.2015       S.P.ATTRI          ANITA KAPOOR        DHARAM PAL

                         MEMBER          MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                                     DHARAM PAL 

                                                     PRESIDENT