Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/16/71

Dr. Brij Mohan Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Preet Communication & Another - Opp.Party(s)

In person

17 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  71 of 03.10.2016

                                 Date of decision                    :      17.02.2017

 

 

Dr. Brij Mohan Sharma, son of Yograj Sharma, Resident of Village Dugri, P.O. Malakpur, Tehsil and District Rupnagar.

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

 

1. Preet Communication, Pull Bazaar, through its Proprietor, Rupnagar. 

2. Micromax Service Centre SCF No.20, Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Rupnagar, Near Oxford Academy, Tehsil & District Rupnagar, through its Proprietor.

 

                                                                   ....Opposite Parties

 

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

 

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

                        Dr. Brij Mohan, complainant in person 

              Sh. Narinder Singh, Proprietor of Preet Communication                       of O.P. No.1

              Sh. Suresh Kumar, Centre Manager of Micromax of O.P.                     No.2

 

 

ORDER

                                  MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

 

                             Dr. Brij Mohan has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the                                  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the                                     Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as                              ‘the O.Ps.’) praying for the following reliefs:-

          i)       To replace the old mobile set with the new one 

          ii)      To pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of      mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.

          iii)     To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.  

 

 

2.                    In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Micromax mobile set, model No. Mi Max Meg, 4G, IMEI No.911469800895984 from O.P. No.1, for a sum of Rs.9200/- vide bill No.709 dated 26.5.2016, having one year grantee. When, he opened the mobile set at home, he shocked to see that the screen of the said mobile set was pressed from the bottom and it was not functioning properly. Immediately, he approached the O.P. No.1 and requested to change the hand set or to remove the defect of the handset. The O.P. No.1 told him to approach the O.P. No.2 for the rectification of the problem. On the asking of the O.P. No.1, he approached to the O.P. No.2, it told him that the defect in the mobile set cannot be repaired and also refused to replace the same with the new one. He asked O.P. No.2 to issue him a job sheet but it flatly refused. The O.Ps. did not provide him the after sale services properly and satisfactorily. Hence, this complaint. 

3.                          On being put to the notice, the O.P. No.1 have filed written version taking preliminary objections: that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the answering O.P; that the complainant by totally misstating the facts has filed the present complaint against it; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the complaint does not lie against the answering O.P.; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering O.P.; that the complainant has no cause of action against the answering O.P.; that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party as the mobile set in question was manufactured by Micromax Informatics Ltd and the answering O.P. is a simple dealer/seller of the mobile set in question; that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the answering O.P. On merits, it is stated that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question from the answering O.P. vide bill dated 26.5.2016 and before purchase of the same, the complainant satisfied himself about functioning of the same and the same was sold to him as per his order. The complainant had been using mobile set in question without any complaint upto last week of September, 2016, and only before filing of the present he had come to the answering O.P. with alleged complaint and he was advised to contact O.P. No.2 for service of the same and prior to it he never made any complaint to the answering O.P. As per information collected by the answering O.P, complainant never visited to O.P. No.2. Moreover, mobile set in question has been mishandled by the complainant, which has caused alleged defect and for the removal of the said defect, the complainant may approach the O.P. No.2. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, it being without any merit.

4.                          The O.P. No.2 have also filed written version taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the answering O.P; that the complainant by totally misstating the facts has filed the present complaint against it; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the complaint does not lie against the answering O.P.; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering O.P.; that the complainant has no cause of action against the answering O.P.; that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party as the mobile set in question was manufactured by Micromax Informatics Ltd and the answering O.P. is a simple dealer/seller of the mobile set in question; that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the answering O.P. On merits, it is stated that the complainant never brought his mobile set for repair, so no question arose to told to complainant that the mobile set can neither be repaired nor it can be replaced and it never refuse to issue any job sheet. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, it being without any merit.

5.                          On  being called upon to do so, the complainant tendered his affidavit of the complainant, Ex. C1, photocopy of bill dated 26.5.2016 Ex.C2.  The O.Ps. No.1 & 2 have suffered a statement, which has been recorded separately to the effect that they do not want to tender any document in evidence and closed their evidence.

 5.                         We have heard the complainant and O.Ps. No.1 & 2 and have gone through the record of the file carefully.

6.                          Admittedly complainant purchased the mobile set in question from O.P. No.1 vide invoice dated 26.5.2016. The grievance of the complainant is that when he unpacked the mobile set in question, he found that screen of the mobile set was pressed from the bottom and it was not working properly. On the advice of O.P. No.1, he took his mobile set to O.P. No.2. It told him that the defect occurred in the mobile set cannot be repaired and also refused to replace the same with the new one. He asked the O.P. No.2 to issue him the job sheet but it flatly refused. On the other hand, the stand of the O.P. No.2 is that since the complainant never brought his mobile set for its repair to it, therefore, the question to refuse to repair or replace the mobile set or to refuse to issue the job sheet does not arise. During the course of arguments, Sh. Suresh Kumar, Centre Manager of Micromax of O.P. No.2, submitted that he is still ready to rectify the defect(s) provided complainant hands over the mobile set in question.
Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we feel it appropriate that the complainant shall hand over the mobile set in question to the O.P. No.2 for its repair and thereafter the O.P. No.2 shall set it right either by repairing or replacing the defective part(s), free of cost. Neither any specific allegation has been leveled against the O.P. No.1 by the complainant nor it has been proved, therefore, the complaint filed against the O.P. No.1 is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, we dismiss the complaint against the O.P. No.1 and dispose of the same against the O.P. No.2 with the direction to the complainant to hand over the mobile set in question to the O.P. No.2 for its repair within 10 days, after the receipt of the certified copy of this order. The O.P. No.2 is directed to hand over the mobile set in question to the complainant after rectifying the defect(s) either by repairing or replacing the defective part (s), free of cost, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the mobile in question from the complainant.

7.                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                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

                    Dated .17.02.2017                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                     (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                                        MEMBER