BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint no. 208 of 2016.
Date of Institution: 1.9.2016.
Date of Decision: 4.5.2017
Rajender Kumar son of Sh. Brij Lal, resident of village Keharwala, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. Nokia Care, Sachdeva Sales Corporation, Old Civil Hospital Complex, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa, through its Prop/ partner/ Manager/ Auth. Person.
2. WS Retail Services Private Limited, Ozone Manay Tech. Park No.56 18 ‘B’ Block, 9th Floor Garvebhavipalya, Hosur Road, Bangalore 560068, Karnataka (Regd. Office) through its prop/ partner/ Managing Director/ Auth. Person.
3. SND WARE HOUSE, Shed No.CL Door No.4 195 Redhills- Ambattur Road, Phuzal Village, Chennai (Tamilnadu), its prop/ partner/ Manager/ Auth. Person.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SMT. RAJNI GOYAT……PRESIDING MEMBER.
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Ravinder Monga, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. J.S. Sidhu, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
Opposite party no.3 exparte.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that he was in need of a mobile, so he purchased the same from ops No.2 & 3 through online vide order ID-OD405125344863545000, invoice dated 2.2.2016 for a sum of Rs.10,999/-. The ops no.2 and 3 had assured that this mobile is a latest mobile of reputed company of Leeco and also assured about its quality. On every type of assurance, complainant purchased the said mobile on 2.2.2016 through online with guarantee/ warrantee. In the month of June, 2016 a breakage occurred in the touch of said mobile. The complainant visited to the op no.1 immediately who is authorized care centre of company and op no.1 asked that touch of the mobile is to be replaced and he will have to pay Rs.4800/- for its original touch. The complainant paid Rs.2800/- on 27.6.2016 and Rs.2000/- on 15.7.2016 to the op no.1 and he deposited the mobile of complainant and also asked that he can get his mobile with new original touch within a few days. When complainant demanded the job sheet, the op no.1 given a job sheet No.16538 dated 30.7.2016. After few days when he visited the shop of op no.1 to get back his repaired mobile, then op no.1 returned the same to complainant but he was shocked to see the same as there were some dots on the new touch screen and same was also not working properly. The complainant objected for the same to op no.1 but op no.1 instead of listening the complainant started bargaining with him and ousted him from his shop. Then complainant demanded the bill of charging for the replacement of the touch screen upon which op no.1 had given a receipt/ invoice No.13834 dated 12.8.2016. That when the said mobile was not working properly then he got checked the same from the authorized care centre of ops no.2 and 3 i.e. HCL Services Ltd, Delhi by paying its charging fee of Rs.286/- and they told him that the said touch screen replaced by the op no.1 is not original and genuine and is duplicate. The job sheet prepared by op no.1 is also not original and same is also duplicate. The op no.1 had got repaired the said mobile of complainant from a private mechanic. Then complainant also raised his protest in this regard to op no.1 but of no avail. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It has been submitted that touch screen of the mobile was broken down on account of use and mishandling of the complainant. The breakage of parts are obviously out of warranty, so while understanding the terms and conditions of the manufacturing company, the complainant agreed to pay Rs.4800/- for changing of the original touch screen duly received from the company. The touch screen was changed and the complainant is enjoying the functioning of the mobile and never visited to the answering op. Even at the time of receiving the mobile after changing touch screen it was informed to the complainant that in case any problem ever arise in view of the terms of the manufacturing company i.e. within warranty period then his grievance/ complaint could be easily resolved being a prudent consumer. The complainant never visited again for any complaint which shows his satisfaction from the comfortable functioning of the mobile. Even otherwise, the answering op is still ready to cooperate to the complainant in case of any complaint i.e. within warranty conditions. The complaint is premature and liable to be dismissed. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.
3. OP no.2 has replied that purchase of mobile Letv Le IS for Rs.10,999/- by complainant is a matter of record. However, the role of op no.2 is only limited to reselling the products of various manufacturers and its role comes to an end as soon as the product ordered is delivered at the address provided by the customer. In the present case, the op no.2 has delivered the product in a sealed box to the complainant as it was received from the manufacturer within the time specified in the order, hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of op no.2.
4. OP no.3 did not appear despite notice and was proceeded against exparte.
5. In evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of retail invoice/ bill Ex.C1, copy of sale invoice/ delivery note dated 12.8.2016 Ex.C2, copy of report of HCL Services Ltd. Ex.C3 and copy of job sheet Ex.C4. On the other hand, op no.1 produced affidavit Ex.R1. OP no.2 produced affidavit Ex.RW2.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. The complainant has received the mobile in question through online service of ops no.2 & 3 on 2.2.2016 for a sum of Rs.10,999/- as is evident from copy of retail invoice/ bill Ex.C1. From the copy of sale invoice/ delivery note of opposite party no.1 dated 12.8.2016, it is evident that op no.1 changed the touch of the mobile and charged a sum of Rs.4800/- from the complainant i.e. Rs.2800/- on 27.6.2016 and Rs.2000/- on 15.7.2016. However, as per the report of HCL Services Ltd., New Delhi ‘device outside repair’ ‘touch not genuine’. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.286/- to the said agency i.e. HCL Service Ltd. for obtaining the technical report. So, it is proved on record that the opposite party no.1 which is authorized care centre caused deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant by receiving an amount of Rs.4800/- in lieu of replacement of touch screen but replaced the touch screen with a duplicate touch and issued a belated bill for the same on 12.8.2016 whereas it charged the amount of Rs.4800/- much prior to 12.8.2016 i.e. Rs.2800/- on 27.6.2016 and Rs.2000/- on 15.7.2016. The op no.1 has wrongly averred that original touch screen was inserted which was received from the company. The op no.1 has got repaired the mobile from outside and has not sent the same to the company for replacement of touch with original one despite charging huge amount of Rs.4800/- from the complainant and therefore, has rendered the mobile of the complainant invaluable as duplicate part has been inserted in it. The mobile in question is not working properly and complainant cannot take advantage of the mobile despite spending an amount of Rs.10,999/- for the purchase of mobile and further amount of Rs.4800/- for change of screen. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to replacement of mobile set with a new one. The plea of op no.2 is also not acceptable as complainant has purchased the mobile through ops No.2 & 3 and they being service provider are liable to provide after sale services to the complainant from the company being inter-mediatory.
8. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct all the opposite parties to replace the mobile of complainant with a new one of equal cost within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they will refund the price of the mobile in question i.e. Rs.10,990/- to the complainant within further one month and upon their failure to make payment of price of mobile within stipulated time, the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 1.9.2016 till actual realization. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order should be complied by all the ops jointly and severally as directed above. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated: 04.05.2017 Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
