Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/24

Varinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

New Saini Telecom & Others - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Manpreet Singh, Adv

04 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                               Consumer Complaint No. : 24 of 05.03.2015

                                 Date of decision               : 04.06.2015

 

 

Varinder Singh, aged about 28 years, son of Sh. G.C. Rana, resident of H. No. 2120, Ali Mohalla, Ropar, Tehsil and District Ropar.

                                                                                      ......Complainant

 

                                             Versus

 

1. New Saini Telecom, Near Bela Chowk, Ropar, Tehsil & District Ropar

    through its Proprietor.

2. M/s Service City, Shop No. 167/17 (First Floor), Part A, Near Vijay

    Rattan Chowk, Ambala Cantt, Ambala-133001 (Service Centre of

    Micromax Informatics Ltd.)

3. Micromax Informatcs Ltd., Corporate Office, 90-B, Sector 18, Gurgaon

    (HR)-122015.

                                                                                   ....Opposite Parties

 

                                        Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                           Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

Sh. Manpreet Singh Advocate, counsel for the complainant

Sh. Mohit Kumar Dhupar Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party No. 1

Opposite Parties No. 2 & 3 ex-parte

 

 

ORDER

                                       MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Varinder 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 the following reliefs:-

i)       To replace his defective mobile set with a new one or to refund back its price along with interest @ 18% P.A. w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till realization,

 ii)     To pay damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-,

iii)     To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 08.08.2014, he had purchased one Micromax mobile set, Model A61 for a sum of Rs.4300/- from the O.P. No. 1, who had given one year’s warrantee with the assurance that if there would be any defect in its functioning, he would be at liberty to ask for replacement of the set with a new one or to get refund of its price . However, to his surprise, only after few days of its purchase, the said mobile set started giving trouble, as it was not functioning properly, and used to switch off automatically. It was within the warrantee period and as per the conditions mentioned in the bill, in case of any trouble in the said mobile set, he was to approach directly to the Service Centre of the Company. Accordingly, he sent his mobile set to the office of the O.P. No.2 through his friend, namely, Saurav, and the O.P. No. 2 issued job sheet for the same. After that, he personally visited the office of the O.P. No. 2, who orally told him that there was manufacturing defect in it, which cannot be rectified, in any manner. After one week, he went to the shop of the O.P. No. 1 & enquired about his mobile set, who also told him that the problem cannot be rectified, therefore, a new set would be provided to him, but for the said purpose, he had to approach the O.P. No. 3. The O.Ps. have, thus, prolonged the matter on one pretext or the other and have neither given him the new mobile set nor delivered his old set, leading to causing of humiliation to him, without any sufficient cause. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                On being put to notice, the O.P. No. 1 filed written statement taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable against the answering O.P., which has been filed just to harass & humiliate it; that there is no deficiency in service on its part, and the complainant had intentionally impleaded it as the O.P. No. 1 in his complaint, in order to make jurisdiction of this Forum; that the complainant has not come before the Forum with clean hands, as he hasd never visited the office the answering O.P. after purchase of the mobile set in question (wrongly written as Inverter/Battery) and that the complaint is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from the answering O.P. It is also admitted that one year’s guarantee was given by the answering O.P., but it is stated that the same was given on behalf of the other O.Ps. It is further admitted that as per the conditions of the bill, in case of any trouble in the said mobile set, the complainant was to approach directly to the Service Centre of the Company. It is also admitted that the answering O.P. had told to the complainant that it could not give a new hand set to him, unless & until, he approaches the O.P. No. 3 for the said purpose. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint against the answering O.P. with heavy costs.

 

4.                None having appeared on behalf of the O.Ps. No. 2 & 3, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.05.2015.

 

5.                On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant, Ex. C1, photocopies of documents Ex. C2 & C3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 1 tendered affidavit of Sh. Tajinder Saini, proprietor of O.P. No.1, Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.

 

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and O.P. No. 1 and gone through the record of the file carefully.

 

7.                At the outset, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 1 raised the objection that the complainant has filed this complaint against the O.P. No.1 just to attract the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the objection raised by the learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 is baseless because the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from the O.P. No.1 vide Retail Invoice dated 08.08.2014(Ex.C3), as such, cause of action has arisen within the territory of Ropar District, thus, this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter. We find force, in the submission put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant because the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from the O.P. No.1, who is running its business within the territory of Ropar District. Accordingly, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 1 is rejected.

8.                Now coming to the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the mobile set in question got defective, within few days after its purchase i.e.  within the warranty period.  He took it to the O.P. No.2 i.e. the authorized Service Centre of the O.P. No.3 for its repair, who kept the same with it and issued a job sheet dated 04.10.2014, Ex.C2. After sometimes, when he approached the O.P. No. 2 to get back his mobile set, then it told him that the mobile set in question is beyond repair as it suffers from manufacturing defect and that a new mobile set will be provided to him through the O.P. No.1. However, till today, the O.Ps. have neither handed over his mobile set after its repair, nor have replaced the same with a new one. Therefore, the O.Ps. be directed either to replace the defective mobile set with a new one or to refund the price thereof along with interest. They be also directed to pay compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment along with litigation expenses.

 

          The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 submitted that in the retail invoice/bill dated 08.08.2014, Ex.C3, it is categorically written that—“Warranty of mobile will be provided by the company Authorized Service Centre.” Since the warranty for the said mobile set has been given by the authorized service centre, on behalf of the manufacturer and if it got defective, then the repair has to be done by the O.P. No. 2 only and not by the O.P. No.1, who is merely a seller, therefore, the complaint filed against it be dismissed with cost.

 

9.                So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the mobile set in question is beyond repair, as it suffers from inherent manufacturing defect, as such, the O.Ps. are liable either to replace the same with a new one or to refund the cost thereof,  is not sustainable, because the complainant has failed to prove, by placing on record any cogent & convincing evidence, that it suffers from inherent manufacturing defect, beyond repair. From the invoice dated 08.08.2014, Ex.C3, it is evident that the warranty for the said mobile set was provided by the O.P. No. 2 i.e. the Authorized Service Centre of the manufacturer i.e. O.P. No.3. In the job sheet dated 04.10.2014, Ex.C2, in the column meant for “Repair Warranty Remarks”, it is written “in warranty”. As per the version of the complainant, he had handed over the mobile set in question to the O. P. No. 2 for its repair, vide above said job sheet Ex. C2, but the same has not yet been delivered to him after its repair. This fact has gone unrebutted, thus, we have no option but to accept the said version of the complainant. Since the O.P. No. 2 had not handed over the said mobile set to the complainant, after its repair, thus, this act of the O.P. No.2 amounts to deficiency in rendering service. It may be stated that the O.P. No.2 is the authorized service centre of O.P. No.3, therefore, it is not only the duty of the O.P. No. 3 to look into the matter, but being manufacturer, it is its primary duty to provide requisite services to the customers, who have purchased the products manufactured by it. In the instant case, inspite of receipt of notice of this complaint from this Forum, the O.P. No. 3 had neither preferred to appear & contest the case nor has made any effort to redress the grievance of the complainant, which amounts to deliberate omission on its part, thus, we hold that the O.P. No. 3 is also deficient in rendering service. The O.Ps. No. 2 & 3, both, are not only liable to repair the mobile set in question, but are also liable to pay compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony & physical harassment, suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.

 

10.              So far as the complaint filed against the O.P. No. 1 is concerned, if, after sale of the mobile set in question, some defect(s) had occurred in it, then as per warranty, it was the duty of the O.Ps. No. 2 & 3 to remove the defect(s) occurred in it either by repairing or replacing the defective part(s), and not of the O.P. No.1, who had only sold the mobile set to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint filed against the O.P. No.1 is liable to be dismissed.

 

11.              In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint against the O.P. No. 1 and partly allow the same against the O.Ps. No. 2 & 3, who are directed as under:-

i)       To hand over the mobile set in question to the complainant, after removing the defect(s) occurred in it, either by repairing or replacing the defective part(s), free of cost,

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

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

 

          The O.Ps. No. 2 & 3 are further directed to comply with the above said directions, jointly & severally, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which they shall refund the amount of Rs.4300/- i.e. the sale price of the mobile set in question, to the complainant, alongwith compensation & litigation expenses, as directed above.

 

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                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated:  04.06.2015                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                     MEMBER.