Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/100/2023

HARJINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PANKAJ MINHAS - Opp.Party(s)

SUBHASH C BINJOLA

05 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/100/2023
Date of Institution	:	24/02/2023
Date of Decision	:	05/03/2024

 

Harjinder Singh s/o Sh. Charanjit Singh r/o Village Tangail, Tehsil Maulana, District Ambala.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Sh.Pankaj Minhas M/s All Mobile Repair, S.C.O. 1013, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Subhash C. Binjola, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Harshit Chawla, Advocate for OP

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Harjinder Singh, complainant against the aforesaid opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the OP).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that on 15.12.2021, complainant had purchased a mobile battery from the OP for his Apple Mobile by paying consideration of ₹1,500/- vide receipt (Ex.B) and the OP gave warranty of one year on the said battery w.e.f. 15.12.2021 to 15.12.2022 on the job card (Ex.A).  However, after five months of purchase of the aforesaid battery, it stopped working, as a result of which, complainant took the same to OP on 16.6.2022.  At that time, engineer of the OP checked the battery and told that the same had gone out of order and asked the complainant to purchase another battery on payment of ₹1,100/-. The complainant resisted the said act of the OP as the battery was within warranty, but, as there was no other option, complainant agreed to the same and paid the amount of ₹1,100/- on 16.6.2022 as per receipt (Ex.D).  However, even the second battery started giving problem to the complainant as the same stopped working just after two days.  Again the complainant approached the OP to resolve the problem, but, he refused to do so despite repeated requests and service of legal notice dated 22.11.2022 (Ex.E).  In this manner, the aforesaid act of the OP in selling defective goods and thereafter not honouring the warranty, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed his written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability and locus standi. On merits, admitted that the complainant had purchased the first battery on 15.12.2021 for ₹1,500/- on which OP had provided one year warranty and thereafter on finding some problem in the battery, the same was again replaced on 16.6.2022 on payment of ₹1,100/- by the complainant.  However, it is alleged that the complainant had agreed to purchase new battery with fresh warranty regarding which endorsement was also made on the job sheet.  It is further alleged that, in fact, there was defect in the mobile phone which had underlying hardware error on account of which the battery was getting drained.  On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. Despite grant of sufficient opportunity, rejoinder was not filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OP.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased the first battery on 15.12.2021 and the same started giving problem within the warranty period of one year warranty i.e. w.e.f. 15.12.2021 to 15.12.2022 and the OP again sold another battery to the complainant for an amount of ₹1,100/- and extended the warranty from 16.6.2022 to 15.6.2023 and the second battery again started giving problem just after two days, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OP has sold defective battery which amounts deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if there was no defect in the battery and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed.
   2. OP has come with the specific defence that, in fact, both the batteries were drained on account of the underlying hardware error in the mobile of the complainant due to which the battery was getting drained.  However, the OP has miserably failed to prove his aforesaid defence by adducing cogent and convincing evidence to show if there was any defect in the hardware of the mobile of the complainant, rather the OP has not even named the specific hardware which according to him was defective in the mobile of the complainant and causing the battery to drain out and for that adverse inference has to be drawn against the OP.
   3. On other hand, when it has already come on record that the two batteries got defective within the warranty period (first within five months and the second just after two days of purchase), it is safe to hold that the goods (battery) sold by the OP were defective.  Moreover, when it also stands proved on record that the OP has again charged an amount of ₹1,100/- from the complainant at the time of selling the second battery, despite of the fact that the first battery was well within warranty period, it is safe to hold that the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP is directed as under :-

1. to refund the amount of ₹2,600/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the respective dates of payment onwards.
2. to pay ₹1,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹1,500/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OP within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

05/03/2024 hg	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member