| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.373 of 31-05-2016 Decided on 07-02-2017 Sanjeev Jindal aged about 46 years S/o Krishan Chand R/o # 17224, Street No.2, Aggarwal Colony Near Jindal Plywood, Bhatti Road, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.North India Top Company Pvt. Ltd., C/o Acron Warehouse & Logistic, Park68, Village Kapriwas & Malpura, Taluq-Dharuhera, District Rewari (Haryana), through its M.D/Chairman/Director. (Deleted) 2.Deepak Telecom (Authorized Service Center) Opposite Harjit Studio Cinema Road, Mansa-151505, Punjab, through its Incharge/Proprietor/Parnter/Head. (Deleted) 3.Spice Retail Ltd., 5 Global Knowledge Park, 19A & 19B, Sector 125, Noida-201301 (U.P), through its Managing Director/Chairman/Director/Authorized Person/Signatory. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.Inderjit Singh, Advocate. For opposite party Nos.1 & 2: Deleted. For opposite party No.3: Sh.Vinod Garg, Advocate. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Sanjeev Jindal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties North India Top Company Pvt. Ltd. and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on the allurement of tall claims of opposite party No.1, the complainant purchased one Spice Xplro Proton 5 mobile handset for Rs.5999/- imported/marketed by opposite party No.3 with one year warranty for his personal use. Opposite party No.2 is the authorized service centre of Spice company. It is alleged that the complainant placed an online order with opposite party No.1 from Bathinda on 28.1.2016, which was delivered to him at Bathinda on 1.2.2016 vide invoice dated 29.1.2016. The payment of Rs.5999/- was made by him to the agent/courier/delivery boy of opposite parties at Bathinda at the time of delivery. At the time of purchase of the mobile handset, opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that it is one of the top most model of the Spice company and is free from all type of defects and is having good performance and further assured that if there would be any defect in it, the defect would be removed within no time and if there would be non-removalble defect, the set would be replaced with new one. It is further alleged that just within a week from purchase of the mobile handset, it started giving the problem of touch screen as its touch was not functioning properly. The complainant contacted opposite party No.1, it asked him that the nearest service centre of Spice company is at Mansa. On the advice of opposite party No.1, the complainant sent his mobile handset to his relative Rajat Gupta to get the same checked from opposite party No.2. In the first week of March 2016, Rajat Gupta visited opposite party No.2 with the complaint of touch screen, it after inspecting the same, kept the mobile handset with it for deep inspection and repair vide job sheet and advised the relative of the complainant to collect the duly repaired mobile handset on 24.3.2016. It is further alleged that as per advise of opposite party No.2, the relative of the complainant visited opposite party No.2 on 24.3.2016 to collect the duly repaired mobile handset. Opposite party No.2 handed over the repaired mobile handset to the relative of the complainant after getting the job sheet from him. Thereafter he checked the mobile handset then and there and found that the aforesaid defect still persist. Opposite party No.2 prepared the job sheet dated 24.3.2016 and again kept the mobile handset with it for repair and advised him to collect the duly repaired mobile handset after about 15 days. On next day i.e. 25.3.2016, the complainant contacted at the customer care of opposite party No.3 at toll free No.1860-200-1003 and apprised it about the entire facts. Opposite party No.3 conveyed that in case the mobile handset would not be repaired within 10-12 days, it would replace the same with new one. It is further alleged that on 16.4.2016, the complainant contacted at the customer care of opposite party No.3 and told that the mobile handset is still lying with opposite party No.2 as it has not been repaired so far to which dealing person conveyed that the required part/s are not available with opposite party No.2 and it shall take 7-8 days. After waiting for 8-9 days, the complainant contacted at customer care and again the reply was same. Thereafter, he again talked at No.0120-3946730 to which they conveyed that the mobile handset has been sent to the concerned lab and same shall be repaired and handed over to him after its repair, but no time frame was given. Since then, the complainant is running post to pillar, but to no effect. On this backdrops of fact, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and has prayed for directions to opposite parties either to replace the mobile handset with new one or in alternative to refund its price alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and also claimed damages to the tune of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental tension, agony etc. and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint. In view of statement suffered by counsel for complainant on 1.6.2016, name of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 was deleted from the array of opposite parties. Upon notice, opposite party No.3 appeared through its counsel and contested the complaint by filing its written version. In its written version, opposite party No.3 has raised the preliminary objections that this complaint is misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed as there is negligence on the part of the complainant by not collecting his repaired mobile handset from the service centre. This complaint is not maintainable. The allegations made against opposite party No.3 in the complaint are false in nature. No person should be allowed to misuse the remedies available under the Act. Opposite party No.3 acted in good faith and offered the best of its services to the complainant of the device. Under ordinary circumstances, bonafide action has been taken by opposite party No.3, which cannot be held to be as deficiency in service. On merits, it is admitted that every genuine mobile handset carries limited warranty of one year against any manufacturing defect and in case of any damage, the limited warranty of the mobile handset ceases to exist. Opposite party No.3 is not aware about the discussion between opposite party No.1 and complainant. Opposite party No.3 is a separate legal entity and it cannot be held liable for any act/omission of opposite party No.1. It is pleaded that in case of any irreparable manufacturing defect, the replacement would be provided. It is responsibility of the consumer to tender the mobile handset for repair with authorized service centre and get it collected upon intimation. Opposite party No.3 does not provide the services for collection/delivery of the mobile handset at the doorstep of the consumers. Whenever the complainant approached the service centre, he was given due and proper services within the limited period and mobile handset was repaired within the stipulated period and he was intimated accordingly to get his repaired mobile handset from the service centre, but he failed to approach the service centre to collect his mobile handset. All other averments are categorically denied. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, opposite party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 8.9.2016, (Ex.C1); photocopy of job sheet, (Ex.C2); photocopy of retail invoice, (Ex.C3); photocopies of mobile box, (Ex.C4 and Ex.C5) and closed the evidence. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party No.3 has tendered into evidence affidavits of B.M Aggarwal dated 29.7.2016, (Ex.OP3/1 and Ex.OP3/2) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully. It is relevant to mention that during the pendency of complaint, on 12.7.2016, the complainant has received the mobile handset from opposite party No.3 in working condition. The complainant has alleged that his mobile handset was not repaired by opposite parties. Of-course, opposite party No.3 has pleaded that the mobile handset was already repaired, but the complainant did not turn up to collect it. There is nothing on record to prove that any notice was given to the complainant regarding repair of the mobile handset or asking him to collect his duly repaired mobile handset. Opposite party No.3 cannot escape from its liability of deficiency in service only for the reason that it has delivered the mobile handset to the complainant after repair and in working condition. The complainant has been forced to this litigation. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No.3. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 07-02-2017 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
