Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/420/2014

Chhabra Mobile Repair Centre - Complainant(s)

Versus

Overnite Expree Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Saini

04 Jul 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 420 of 2014

                                                                                    Date of institution: 07.10.2014

                                                                                     Date of decision: 04.07.2017

 

Chhabra Mobile Repair Centre, Shop No.30 Azad Nagar Road, Near Trimurti Aashram, Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor Kapil Chhabra aged about 26 years son of Shri TR Chhabra.

 

                           …Complainant.

                                                            Versus

1. Overnite Express Limited, Shop No.71, First Floor Shivaji Market, Yamuna Nagar through Shri Naveen Sharma son of Shri Haqikat Sharma.
2. Overnite House, 11099-C, East Park Road, New Delhi-110005 through its Manager/MD.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                      SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

                      SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND………....MEMBER.

                       

Present:          Shri S.S. Saini, Advocate for complainant

                      Shri B.S. Chauhan, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 against the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs).

2.                     Brief facts, as alleged in the complaint, are that complainant is an authorized Service Centre for PENTA products for Haryana from January, 2014 to January 2015. The Certificate issued by PANTEL TECHNOLOGIES Limited is Annexure A-1. Complainant received following four tablets for purpose of repairing:- (i) W5802C 2G Tablet bearing IMEI Number 911219850255112 from Pardeep Boass. (ii) Ws707C bearing IMEI No.911305500591947 from Ajay Kumar. (iii) Ws707C bearing IMEI No.911305500385001 from Kunal Chaudhary. (iv) WS708 C bearing IMEI No.911305450438545 from Deepesh Kumar, vide job sheets Annexure A2 to A5 respectively. Further it has been mentioned that rate of tablet of Pardeep Boass ws Rs.7070/-, Deepesh Kumar is Rs.6990/- and two other mobile sets was of Rs.6999/- and Rs.6830/- respectively. Invoices depicting the rate of tablet are Annexure A6 to A9. Being authorized centre, the complainant had accepted these mobiles sets/tablets for repair. After receiving these products, the complainant dispatched all the 4 tablets/mobile to M/s Pantel Technologies Pvt. Limited, E-33, 1^st Floor, Noida through the OPs on 07.07.2014. The OP No.1 told to the complainant that the above said articles shall reach to its destination upto 8/9.07.2014. The receipts issued by the OP No.1 are Annexure A-10 to A-13. However, it is a matter of utter regret that till now the articles dispatched by the OP No.1 to the said M/s Pantel Tech. has not reached to its destination causing a great dismay to the complainant. The complainant made written complaints to the OPs who stated that the said courier parcel has been misplaced by them. Lastly, prayed for acceptance of the complainant and direct the OPs to pay amount of 4 tablets/mobiles to the tune of Rs.7078/-, Rs.6999/-, Rs.6999/- and Rs.6830/- i.e. totally in all Rs.27906/- and to pay Rs.85,000/- on account of mental loss and agony and to pay Rs.15000/-as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement jointly by taking some preliminary objections such as compliant is not maintainable; complainant has no locus standi to the file present complaint; complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by its own act and conduct, complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint; complaint of the complainant is false and frivolous; complaint of the complainant is bad for non joinder of necessary parties; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from this Forum and on merit it is stated that true facts are that four tablets/mobiles were sent by the complainant through OP No.1 and declared value of all the tablets were Rs.4000/-, Rs.3500/-, Rs.4000/- and Rs.5000/- as per Annexure A-10 to A-13 which was disclosed by the complainant to the OP No.1 at the time of booking. The aforesaid four tablets/mobiles lost in NOIDA, upon which the complainant lodged a claim of Rs.16,500/- vide letter dated 30.07.2014  and after investigation, the OPs have agreed and sent the cheque No.015626 dated 11.10.2014 drawn on YES Bank in favour of Kapil Chhabra with covering letter to the complainant but the complainant refused to receive the above said cheque due to the reasons best known to him and with intention to harass the OPs and to drag the OPs in unnecessary and vague litigation, whereas the OPs was always and is still ready to pay value of four tablets as stated and disclosed at the time of dispatching the aforesaid four tablets to M/s Pantel the Private Limited Noida, through OP No.1 and claimed by complainant vide letter dated 30.07.2014 i.e. Rs.16500/-. Rest contents of the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure C-X, photocopy of Certificate issued by Penta as Annexure C-1, photocopy of job sheet of Shri Pardeep Bose as Annexure C-2, photocopy of job sheet of Shri Ajay as Annexure C-3, photocopy of job sheet of Shri Kunal as Annexure C-4, photocopy of job sheet of Shri Dipesh as Annexure C-5, photocopy of bills dated 14.01.2014 as Annexure C-6, photocopy of retail  invoice of Shri Dipesh Kumar as Annexure C-7, photocopy of retail invoice of Shri Rajesh Kumar as Annexure C-8, photocopy of courier receipts as Annexure C-9 to C-12, photocopy of retail invoice of Shri Vikas Annexure C-13 and closed his evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Naveen Sharma as Annexure RW/A, photocopy of parcel service as Annexure R-1 to R-4, photocopy of bills as Annexure R-5 to R-8, photocopy of letter dated 30.07.2014 as Annexure R-9, photocopy of letter to Kapil Chhabra as Annexure R-10, photocopy of cheque as Annexure R-11 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     The only grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have misplaced the courier vide which the complainant sent the four tablets/mobile sets amounting Rs.27,906/- in total vide courier receipts dated 07.07.2014 (Annexure C-9 to C-12) and when he asked to pay the cost of mobile sets then the OPs refused to pay the same which constitutes the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards purchase bills of said tablet /mobile set (Annexure C-6 to C-8 and C-13) and argued that from these bills it is clear that the said products were having cost of Rs. Rs.7078/-, Rs.6999/-, Rs.6999/- and Rs.6830/- i.e. total of amount of Rs.27906/-. Lastly learned counsel for the complainant argued that despite so many visits to the office of the OPs, the official of the OPs failed to pay the cost of products in question which constitute the deficiency in service on their part and lastly prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

8.                     Learned counsel for the Ops argued at length that after lodging the claim, the official of the OPs conducted investigation and it was found that the said tablet/mobile sets were lost in transit. Learned counsel for the OPs draw our attention towards letter dated 30.07.2014 (Annexure R-9) argued that the complainant himself lodged the claim with the OPs for a sum of Rs.16500/- i.e. (Rs.4000/-, Rs.3500/-, Rs.4000/- and Rs.5000/-) for old tablets and accordingly the OPs company approved the same and draw our attention towards the letter dated 17.10.2014 (Annexure R-10) vide which the claim of the complainant was approved for Rs.16500/-). Learned counsel for the OPs further draw our attention towards the photocopy of cheque dated 11.10.2014 (Annexure R-11) and argued that even the OPs company sent the cheque of the same amount i.e. Rs.16500/-  to the complainant, but the complainant refused to accept the same due to reasons best known to him. Learned counsel for the OPs argued that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as the official of the OPs immediately processed the claim of the complainant and approved the same as it is whatsoever was lodged by the complainant with the OPs and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as from the perusal of letter dated 30.07.2014 (Annexure R-9) it is duly evident that the complainant firm lodged the claim with the OPs for a sum of Rs.16500/- declaring/showing the cost of mobile set/tablet as (Rs.4000/-, Rs.3500/-, Rs.4000/- and Rs.5000/-)  and the same amount has been approved by the official of the OPs which is also duly evident form the letter dated 17.10.2014 (Annexure R-10) and further from the photocopy of cheque dated 11.10.2014 (Annexure R-11). After perusal of these letters  as well as cheques, it is clear that the argument advanced by the counsel for the complainant, that complainant is entitled to get Rs.27906/- is not tenable as when the complainant himself lodged the claim with the Ops declaring the value of goods as Rs.16500/- vide his letter dated 30.07.2014 (Annexure R-9) then how he can ask for higher claim after that by way of this complaint. Further, the complainant has totally failed to rebut the version of the OPs that the official of the OPs has not sent the cheque of Rs.16500/- dated 11.10.2014 (R-10) as no rejoinder to this effect has been filed by the complainant.

            On the other angle also, we have perused the purchase bills (Annexure C-6 to C-8 and C-13) and after perusal of these bills it is duly evident that the said mobile set/tablet were purchased by the concerned persons in the month of January, 2014 and in the month of March, 2013 whereas these products were misplaced in the month of July, 2014 i.e. after a period more than 6 months and further this fact cannot be overlooked that these tablets/mobile sets were defective as the same were sent through the OPs company for repair. So, on this account, the Ops company has rightly settled the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs.16500/-which was sent to the complainant through cheque dated 11.10.2014 (Annexure R-11).

10.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, however, as the amount Rs.16500/- which was offered by the OPs in settlement of claim of the complainant is still lying with the OPs company, hence in the interest of justice and to avoid to further litigation between the parties, we direct the OPs to pay Rs.16,500/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days failing which the OPs will also pay the interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the filing of the present complaint till realization. Order of this Forum be complied within a period 30 days, otherwise the complainant will be at liberty to knock the door of this Forum. Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is hereby disposed off. Parties are left to bear their own cost. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.

Dated: 04.07.2017                           

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG),  

                                                                         PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                        YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI

 

 

 

 

            (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)         (S.C. SHARMA)

            MEMBER                                          MEMBER