Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/18/79

Parveen Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Om Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Arvind Singh, Adv

31 Jan 2019

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  79 of 25.09.2018

                                 Date of decision                    :    31.01.2019

 

 

Parveen Singh, son of Mulla Singh, resident of House No.87, Garden Colony, Rupnagar, Tehsil  & District Rupnagar (Punjab) 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Om Telecom (488-433527) Deals in Nokia Care Centre Preet Colony, DAV Public School Road, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.
2. New Saini Telecom At Near Diwan Hardware Store, Gurudwara Singh Sabha Road, Near Bela Chownk Ropar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar    
3. Home Credit India Finance Pvt. Ltd at IIIrd Floor, Tower C DLF Cyber City Phase-II, Guru Gram Haryana   
4. Home Credit India Pvt. Ltd through its Branch Manager C/o New Saini Telecom at Near Diwan Hardware Store Gurudwara Singh Sabha Road, Near Bela Chowk, Ropar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.
5. HMD Global India Pioneer Urban Sequare Tower C, 5^th Floor, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector 62, Guru Gram/Gurgaon-122002 (HR)  

   ...Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Arvind Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant

Sh. Dalwinder Singh, authorized representative of O.P. No.1

Sh. Mohit Kumar Dhupar, Adv. counsel for OP No.2

Sh. Mohinderpal Singh, Adv. counsel for O.Ps. No.3 & 4

O.P. No.5 exparte 

 

                                           ORDER

               SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1.    Brief facts made out from the complaint are that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone make Nokia 2 Colour Black DA-TA-1032/2/16 GB from O.P. No.2 vide bill dated 06.02.2018 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- and made a loan contract with O.P. No.3 as loan facility of seven installments of Rs.1399/- each. At the time of loan contract, the O.P. No.3 also provided insurance policy for any defect that would arise during the use of above said mobile under Group Life Insurance Policy for Rs.1500/- for one year. The complainant paid Rs.800/- on 6.2.2018 and a processing fee for Rs.599/- and down payment of Rs.201/ at the time of loan facility provided by O.P. No.3. The complainant complained that from the beginning the mobile was not working properly and was frequently giving problems and it got suddenly switched off. The complainant thereafter, approached O.P. No.2 i.e. M/s New Saini Telecom (retailer) to solve the above mentioned problem, who directed the complainant to visit O.P. No.1 i.e. the M/s Om Telecom, Ropar, (Care Centre of Nokia). On checking the mobile set, the O.P. No.1 was told that there was a problem in the battery of the mobile and was charged Rs.1200/- for the replacement of the same. He was not given the job card regarding the defect of the battery. However, the O.P. returned Rs.1200/- as the battery was within the warranty period. As per the complainant, the mobile set again started giving trouble and took the same to the O.P. No.1, who after checking said that there was a defect in the motherboard and demanded Rs.5500/- for the repair of the said defect and issued the job card to the complainant. The complainant claims that he had paid all the installments of the loan till date, he is a handicapped person and doing the work of a labourer and is in a poor condition. The complainant has requested for issuance the directions to the O.Ps. for the return of his money, Rs.50,000/- for harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation fee with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing till its realization.  Hence, this complaint. 

  2.  On notice, O.P. No.1 i.e. OM Telecom, who deals in Nokia Care Centre, Ropar, appeared through authorized representative filed written reply by stating that the water had entered in the head phone jack and damaged the components of the main board; that he was operating the level I service centre of Nokia Company at Ropar and the mobile was to be checked at the level 3 centre at Chandigarh as his service centre at Ropar has limited knowledge and was not competent for repair of enough serious defects, the same was sent to level 3 service centre at Chandigarh. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint. 

 3.   On notice, the O.P. No.2 has appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency on the part of O.P. No.2; that the complainant has not come to this forum with clean hands; that the complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties. On merits, all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the answering O.P. has been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.    O.Ps. No.3 & 4 appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious; that the complaint has been filed with malafide intentions and ulterior motive to cause harassment to the answering O.Ps. On merits, it is stated that O.P. No.2 has provided the loan facility through O.P. No.3. The complainant himself approached the O.Ps. No.3 & 4 for availing loan facility on the mobile phone. The mobile phone was financed by the answering O.Ps. as per terms and conditions agreed by the complainant. The complainant had availed loan of Rs.9788 from the answering O.Ps which was to be paid in 7 monthly installments of Rs.1399/- each. At the time of availing of the loan, the complainant availed the value added service of Safe Pay facility along with group life insurance policy offered by the company for the benefit of its customers. For availing safe pay along with group life insurance policy the complainant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.489/-. On the basis of the requirements of the complainant, the application form was generated having total product price of Rs.9989/-. The complainant had given undertaking in the application form that he had applied for safepay after carefully understanding the terms and conditions of the safepay and had undertaken to unconditionally abide by the same. In case the complainant opts for the life insurance under group life insurance scheme of Home Credit India then the amount of safepay shall also include amount of insurance premium. The complainant also executed terms and conditions for value added services, application and consent for becoming a member of group life insurance policy. It is further stated that the complainant had availed group life insurance policy and not for mobile handset. It is specifically stated in the application that risk is covered on the death benefit as mentioned in the group policy. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal thereof. 

 5.   On being put to the notice, none appeared on behalf of O.P., accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 09.01.2019.

6.    On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C11 and closed the evidence.  The authorized representative of O.P. No.1 has tendered copy of photographs Ex.OP1/A to Ex.OP1/C and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Satwinder Singh, proprietor of O.P. No.2 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. No.3 & 4 has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Rajat Goel, Legal Manager Ex.OP3/A along with documents Ex.OP3/B to Ex.OP3/F and closed the evidence.

7.    We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

8.    Complainant counsel Sh. Arvind Singh, argued that complainant had purchased the mobile set from OP NO.2 on 6.2.2018 for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. During purchase the mobile was insured with O.Ps. No.3 & 4, who also financed the mobile set. OP NO.5 is the manufacturer and when the mobile set started giving trouble the complainant then approached to the O.P. No.1, who vide Ex.C7, reported firstly qua the defective battery and then mother board is non operational. The learned counsel relied upon the documentary evidence as well as the job card issued by the OP No.1 and also by relying upon the insurance policy prayed to allow the complaint with specific directions to the O.Ps. No.1,2 & 5 either to replace the mobile set with new one or to order to refund of Rs.10,000/- with costs.

9.    On behalf of O.P. No.1, Sh. Dalwinder Singh authorized representative appeared, who made submissions that the mobile set was sold by OP No.2 and due to non-functioning which was produced in their care centre on 11.9.2018. Due to charging failure/mother board defect due to water, the mobile set was not repaired. He also made the prayer that care centre situated in this district is level I and the major office i.e. level 2 is situated at Chandigarh. Earlier the battery of the mobile set in question was replaced by charging the price and on the next day the price was returned. Now the defect is of water shippage and only the level 2 office is the portfolio to remove its error.

10.  Sh. Mohinder pal Singh, counsel for the O.Ps. No.3 & 4 argued that after the purchase, the mobile set was financed and during finance insurance policy qua the health of complainant was issued. There was no policy qua the mobile set in question. Lastly prayed that the complainant is physically OK and no claim can be passed against the O.P. No.3 & 4 and to dismiss the complaint.

11.  Complainant relied upon receipt Ex.C3 dated 6.2.2018 vide which he purchased the mobile set in question for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. OP No.2 appeared, who sold the mobile set and admitted the issuance of receipt Ex.C3. OP No.1 also admitted issuance of the invoice and the complaint is within warranty. So it is a consumer dispute and the complaint is maintainable.

12.  Coming to the real point of controversy, whether the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of O.Ps. or not. Admittedly, OP No.2 sold the mobile set in question to the complainant on 06.02.2018 against a sum of Rs.10,000/- and admitted the warranty period of one year. During the purchase, the complainant got financed from OP No.3 & 4, he also got issued policy and policy is qua the health of complainant not of the mobile in question. Question does not arise to pass any of the order against the Ops. No3 & 4. OP No.2 is the dealer from whom the complainant purchased the mobile set and he admitted the sale/purchase. Similarly no order is required to pass against the dealer (OP No.2)

13.  O.P. No.5 is the manufacturer to whom notice was issued and despite issuance of notice, none appeared i.e. why vide order dated 09.01.2019, OP NO.5 was proceeded against exparte. OP NO.1 appeared through authorized representative Sh. Dalwinder Singh who admitted that due to trouble in the mobile set complainant approached their care centre. Complainant relied upon his sworn affidavit Ex.C1, receipt Ex.C3 dated 6.2.2018 and then upon the star document Ex.C6 which is the collection centre of OP No.1, vide which the battery was changed and charged Rs.1391/-. The said amount as per the arguments advanced by both the parties that was returned on the next day. So, there is no need to go behind the said payment. Delivery note is dated 11.9.2018 Ex.C7 and complainant approached to the OP NO.1, which is admitted by Sh. Dalwinder Singh. During the course of arguments and the defect pointed out charging failure i.e. why the battery was changed on 12.9.2018. But as admitted by complainant counsel as well as by Sh. Dalwinder Singh again started giving trouble on 12.9.2018 and Sh. Dalwinder Singh gave the note his own hand:-

            “MB failure his water coagulated so some components damage”   

Sh. Dalwinder Singh also admitted that the replacement of the mother board is the change of a big part and only the care centre of level 3 is competent which is situated at Chandigarh. The replacement of the motherboard is beyond their jurisdiction. Though, the complainant has also relied upon some other documents which are relating to the loan facility. OP1/A to OP1/C also relied upon vide which OP No.1 try to prove the moisture/seepage of little water drop in the mobile set/mother board and also admitted due to water the mobile set was in-operational.         

14.  After the detailed discussion referred above and appreciating the arguments of both the counsel and  then relying upon the trustworthy report of OP No.1, the forum is of the opinion that the purchased mobile set started creating trouble within the warranty period and rightly approached the care centre (OP NO.1), OP No.1 pointed out the defect earlier of battery charging then of the mother board getting wet. Under the given circumstances, the forum has come to the conclusion that the defect should be removed by the O.Ps. No.1 & 5 within 40 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On receipt of copy of this order, the complainant will approach to the O.P. No.1, who either to mobile set repaired himself or from the level 2 at Chandigarh and also liberty granted to approach the manufacturer i.e. OP NO.5. In case fail to repair then to refund Rs.10000/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the defect pointed out i.e. 12.9.2018 with cost of Rs.2000/-.     

10.  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                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

            Dated.31.01.2019                           PRESIDENT
 

 

 

 

                                      (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                          MEMBER