Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/18/95

Durga Wati - Complainant(s)

Versus

Preet Communication - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jan 2019

ORDER

THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. : 95 of 08.10.2018

                                 Date of decision                    :    03.01.2019

 

Durga Wati aged about 20 years, daughter of Munner Prashad, resident of Room No.277, Type II, Thermal Power Colony, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Preet Communication Pull Bazar, Ropar, Tehsil and District Rupnagar through its proprietor  
2. Om Telecom Authorized Service Parnter of LAVA-4G, Near DAV School Road, Rupnagar     

                                                                     ....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. Munner Prashad, authorized representative of complainant 

Sh. Narinder Singh, proprietor of OP No.1 

OP No.2 exparte

 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1. Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to either to replace the mobile set with the new one or to return the amount of costs of the mobile of the complainant: to pay Rs.10,000/- as damages for harassment; to pay Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation,  in the interest of justice.  
2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that on 01.06.2017, the complainant purchased a LAVA 4G mobile set A.97IMEI Bi, 911526357032129, Battery No.HS17B00 30022 from the opposite party No.1 for the sum of Rs.5500/- and the OP No.1 also issued the receipt regarding the same to the complainant. Immediately, after its purchase, the mobile set started creating trouble and the mobile set in question had stopped its proper functioning. When this defect occurred in the mobile set in question then complainant gave the information and told the defects to the OP No.1. Then OP No.1 directed him to contact the OP No.2 who is the authorized customer care centre of the OP No.1.As per the directions of the OP No.1, the complainant visited the OP No.2 and told about the defects in the mobile set in question. Then OP NO.2 told him that they would remove the defects within 2-3 days. After 2-3 days, the complainant visited the OP No.2 and then OP NO.2 handed over the mobile set in question to the complainant and they assured that they had removed the defects and now the mobile set would not create any problem in future. Again after 2-3 days, the same problem occurred and then complainant again visited the OP No.2 and told him about the defects and then on 20.5.2018, the OP No.2 took the mobile set from the complainant and they told him that they would send the mobile to the service centre at Chandigarh and they would return the same to the complainant after its repair. From 20.5.2017 to 30.6.2017, the mobile set was in the custody of the OP No.2 but when the complainant again visited to get the mobile and they handed over the mobile set to the complainant but the defects were not removed. The complainant visited many times to the OP No.1 for replacing the mobile set in question or to return the price of the mobile set in question but the OP No.1 was putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Hence, this complaint      
3. On notice, Proprietor of OP No.1 appeared and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the answering OP; that the complainant by totally misstating the facts has filed the present complaint; that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party as manufacturuer of the mobile set in question namely Lava International Limited has not been impleaded as one of the OP; that the complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and by leveling false allegations against the answering OP; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP; that the complainant has no cause of action against the answering OP; that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OP No.1 in this for uncalled litigation. On merits, it is stated that complainant purchased the mobile set in question along with battery from the answering OP and before purchase of the same, the complainant satisfied herself about functioning of the same and the same was told to her well in order. If later on any alleged defect occurred in the mobile set in question, it must had taken due to mishandling of the same and the answering OP is not responsible for the same. Moreover, the complainant was directed to visit OP No.2with mobile set in question who shall inspect the same and will remove if any defect in it. The complainant visited the replying OP once and told some problem in the mobile set in question and she was directed to visit the OP No.2, which is a service centre which was supposed to inspect the mobile set and to attend the same if there was any problem and thereafter she never visited the replying OP. Moreover, the replying OP is not competent to replace the mobile set in question as replying OP is only dealer of the mobile set in question and in the absence of manufacturer of the mobile set in question. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof. 

4.    A notice was issued to the OP No.2 but none appeared on behalf of O.P. No.2, accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.12.2018.

5.    On being called upon to do so, the authorized representative of complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents copy of bill dated 01.06.2017 ex.C1 and closed the evidence. The proprietor of OP No.1 has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence

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

7.    Complainant is Durga Wati and the complaint is filed through her father Munner Prashad. She pleaded in the complaint that after the purchase of the mobile set dated 1.6.2017 for a sum of Rs.5500/- from OP No.1, the mobile set started creating trouble in functioning. After that the complainant requested the OP No.1 for the necessary repair/replacement but no fruit. Hence, the complaint. Munner Prashad made submission that the deficiency on the part of the O.Ps.,  because of the non functioning of the mobile set has been proved and the complaint be allowed and the O.Ps. be directed either to replace the mobile set or to pay sale price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.5500/- with interest.

8.    OP No.1 Narinder Singh, is the proprietor of the firm, who filed reply and admitted the sale/purchase of the mobile set, but took the plea that complainant did not approach the customer care centre and if the care centre gives the report qua the functioning then liability can be fixed against the manufacturer. He prayed when deficiency remain un-prove then no relief can be granted in favour of the complainant.  

9.    Complainant Durga Wati, purchased mobile set on 1.6.2017 vide receipt Ex.C1 i.e. admitted by OP No.1 and the sale/purchase of the mobile set stand proves. Relationship between the complainant and O.Ps. stand established as consumer. So the complaint is maintainable and this forum has the territorial jurisdiction.

10.  Complainant pleaded deficiency on the part of the O.Ps, because of the reason that the purchased mobile set not functioning as per her satisfaction. Complainant approached the O.P. No.1, who suggested to approach the care centre. Though, in the complaint as well as an affidavit Ex.CW1/A, complainant pleaded qua the defect as well as approach to the OP No.1 but nothing on file to prove deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. or qua the functioning of the mobile set purchased on 1.6.2017. It is primary duty of the complainant as and when to approach the District Consumer Forum qua the deficiency of any of the purchased item like mobile set is to prove deficiency in working through expert evidence/opinion. It was better for the complainant to firstly approach to the care centre and if the care centre reports qua the manufacturing defect or the defect is not repairable then the manufacturer could be held responsible. In the complaint in hand, complainant remains unable in proving firstly deficiency qua the services rendered by the OP No.1 from whom she purchased the mobile set, secondly not approached the care centre and thirdly in the absence of the expert opinion qua the functioning of the mobile set. The Forum is unable to come to the conclusion qua the deficiency in service against the O.Ps. and in favour of the complainant. So, it is held that complainant remains unable in proving deficiency in service and the complaint is without merit.

11.  In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own cost. Liberty is granted to the complainant if the functioning of the mobile set in question is improper or not to her satisfaction then to approach the care centre and if care centre gives report in her favour then to approach the Forum by filing afresh complaint.

12. 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.03.01.2019                           PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                               (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                                                                MEMBER