BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.

Complaint no.246/2015.

Date of instt. 15.10.2015. 

                                                          Date of Decision: 06.02.2017.

Rinku @ Lekh Raj son of Parmanand c/o R.K.Light Sanyas Ashram Road, near Arorvansh Dharmshala FatehabadTehsil & District Fatehabad.

                                                                              ..Complainant.

                             Versus

1.North India Top Company Private Limited, TCI supply chain Solutions c/o Akorn Warehousing  Logisticks, 68 village Kapriwas Malpura Rewari through its proprietor.

2.Spice Service Centre (B&B Mobile Repair) Palika Bazar, Fatehabad District Fatehabad.

3.S Mobility Limited S Global Knowledge Park, 19A & 20A, Sector 125 Noida Utter Pradesh

..Opposite parties.

       Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                 

Before             Sh. Raghbir Singh, President.

     Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.

Present :          Sh.P.K.Khurana, Advocate for complainant.

                       Sh.Manoj Suneja, Advocate for OP No.1.

 Sh. U.K.Gera, Advocate for OP No.3.

      OP no. 2 exparte.    

ORDER

                      The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (hereinafter to be referred as ‘OPs’).

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the present complaint are that on 06.01.2015 the complainant had purchased a mobile Spice Staler Pinnacle Pro bearing IEMI No.9113130048099 through online from OP No.1 vide Bill No. 06121939695 for a sum of Rs.5,999/-. Mobile hand set was having one year warranty. It has been further averred that the mobile in question developed problem in touch from the very beginning, therefore, the complainant approached OP No.2, who kept the mobile with it and returned back the same to the complainant after few hours but despite that the mobile again started creating same problems besides new problem of networking. The complainant again approached OP No.2 who kept the mobile with it and returned the same to the complainant after repapering but it again developed problem, therefore, the complainant visited Op No.2 who again kept the mobile with it vide job sheet No.07100026F80121  and returned the same to the complainant after few hours.  Thereafter, the mobile worked properly for some days but it again started creating problems. The complainant again approached the OP No.2 but it neither repaired the same nor replaced it. The complainant requested the Ops to replace the defective handset but all in vain.  Hence, this complaint. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1 and documents Annexure C1 & Annexure C2.

3.                On presentation of the complaint, notice of the same was issued to the OPs. OP Nos.1 & 3 put in appearance and contested the complaint of the complainant. However, OP No.2 did not appear before this Forum despite issuance of notice through registered post, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.11.2015.

4.                OP No.1 in its reply has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and the deficiency in after sales service of the product during warranty is attributable to manufacturer and its authorized service centre and the Op No.1 is neither the manufacturer nor the authorized service centre.  It has been further submitted that the product was delivered to the Op No.1in time and in good condition, therefore, after sale the Op No.1 has no role to play as the complainant himself has admitted that he had visited the service centre-Op No.2 many a times for repairs but the handset after repair did not work properly. Lastly, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

5.                          OP No.3 in its reply has submitted that there is no deficiency in service on its part as the complainant has filed the present complaint for illegal gain. It has been further submitted that as per limited warranty terms, if there is any manufacturing defect in the handset within warranty period then authorized service centre will resolve the defects and the replacement can only be possible when there is an irreparable manufacturing defect in the handset.  Other pleas taken in the complainant have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the appearing OPs have tendered affidavit of Sh.B.M.Aggarwal as Ex.OPW1, affidavit of Sh.Sanjiv Mehra as Ex.OPW2  and document Ex.OP1 on the case file.  

6.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for the appearing OPs and have perused the case file carefully.

7.                 Admittedly, the complainant had purchased a mobile through online from OP No.1 manufactured by the OP No.3 on 06.01.2015 (Annexure C1).  The grievance of the complainant is that due to non-working of the handset properly he visited the service centre (OP No.2) many a times for rectification of fault but the OP No.2 despite keeping the set with it many a times failed to remove the fault in the same and it also refused to replace the defective hand set with new one. The contention raised by the complainant has weight because Annexure C2 clearly depicts that the mobile phone did not work properly after its purchase, therefore, the complainant visited OP No.2 time and again and this fact has not been rebutted by the OP No.2 because he did not bother to contest the present complaint and was proceeded against exparte.  Evidently the complainant had spent money for the purchase of brand new mobile handset to facilitate himself but not for moving to the service centers time and again and then this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the Ops. In the present complaint, the complainant was deprived of usage of the mobile inspite of spending such a handsome amount for the purchase of the mobile handset. Even the defects in the mobile handset within warranty period and visiting of the complainant to the service centre time again, makes pointer towards the poor quality of the product.  This forum fell concerned that these days in fast life style of society, cellular set has become part and partial of every person and due to huge demand of mobiles the companies are attracting the customers by adopting different models of advertisements but at the same time after selling the mobile set ofently, customers as well as consumers face a lot of problem even after paying the full cost of mobile set.  Moreover, when a consumer goes for a brand new goods like the mobile his minimum expectation is that he would not encounter or face any inconvenience or hardship for a year and if he had to take the same time and again to the service centre for removing one defect or the other, he suffers immensely in terms of loss of time, physical discomfort and emotional sufferings having not reaped the fruits of paying heavy amount of purchasing a new mobile.  It was the duty of the appearing Ops to remove the defect in the hand set upto the satisfaction of the complainant but they neither repaired the hand set nor replaced the same with new one despite visiting of the complainant to the service centre many a times, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at a conclusion that the appearing Ops have been deficient in providing service to the complainant. On this point reliance can be taken from case law titled as Tata Motors Vs. Rajesh Tyagi and others, I (2014) CPJ 132 (NC).   There is nothing on the file to show that the OP No.1 has been deficient in providing service to the complainant, therefore, the present complaint against it stand dismissed.  

6.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the appearing OP Nos. 2 & 3 jointly and severally to replace the mobile hand set of the complainant with new one having equal value/cost on his depositing the handset alongwith all its accessories with them. We also direct the OP Nos.3 & 3 to pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- in lump sum to the complainant for harassment, mental agony and litigation etc. This order should be complied within a period of one month, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to initiate legal action against the opposite parties.  File be consigned to the record after due compliance.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of costs.

Announced in open Forum:    

Dt.06.02.2017.                                  (Raghbir Singh)

                                                           President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes                                                                    

                                                         Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.

(Ansuya Bishnoi)

 Member