Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/106/2014

Hera Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prince General Store - Opp.Party(s)

Pushpinder Kataria

24 Feb 2015

ORDER

ORDER

                   PER S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.                Complainant – Heera Lal has filed the present complaint against OPs under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to seek a direction to the OPs to replace the mobile set or to refund the cost thereof alongwith 18% per annum interest, compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for negligence and deficiency alongwith Rs.10,000/- on account of physical and mental agony be awarded and another Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses be awarded in the interest of justice.  

2.                Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Micromax Canvas Doodle Cell Phone from OP No.1 on 22.11.2013 vide receipt bearing No.7259 for Rs.12,000/-.  The OP No.2 is the service center/check point of Micromax Company.  The said phone has been manufactured by OP No.3.  In the month of April, 2014, the said mobile phone started giving troubles.  The complainant approached the OP No.1 in the second week of Apr.2014 and explained about all the problem which he was facing.  There was a problem with outgoing calls, with the restarting of the mobile phone, in catching of the network, with touch of the screen and with the on/off switch of the phone.  The OP No.1 took the cell phone from the complainant and asked for a two days time to get the same checked.  After two days when the complainant approached OP No.1, the cell phone in question was given to the complainant with assurance that there is no problem in the cell phone and the same would operate properly from that day onwards.  After the use of some days the complainant started facing the same problem again, after a months time the complainant again visited the OP No.1.  But he was not entertained properly.  OP No.1 asked the complainant to approach the service center/check point of micromax.  On 28.06.2014 he approached the OP No.2 and explained all the problems regarding which he was assured that his problem with the cell phone would be solved or a new set/cell phone would be provided to the complainant.  The cell phone was within warranty period at that time.  OP No.2 asked the complainant to come after two days.  The complainant visited OP No.2 after two days i.e. on 30.06.2014 but he was told that the problem could not be solved and he was shown an old cell phone of micromax and asked to take the said cell phone instead, the complainant did not accept the old cell phone as the cell phone of the complainant was new one.  The complainant asked OP No.2 to provide him with new cell phone if the old one could not be repaired.  OP No.2 clearly stated that they could only provide to the complainant that old cell phone in place of the cell phone of the complainant.  Till date they had not returned the original cell phone of the complainant to him.  They keep on asking for more time even to return the original cell phone of the complainant.  In this way, the OPs are guilty of deficiency of service and using unfair trade practices for enhancing their profits.  So, the complainant is entitled to the relief as stated at the outset of this order.

3.                 Upon notice OP No.1 contested the complaint by filing written reply admitting the facts that the mobile in question was purchased by the complainant on 22.11.2013 for Rs.12,000/-.  The complainant never approached OP No.1, moreover OP is authorized dealer for sale of mobile phone of company and the complaints regarding phones are dealt by service center which is OP No.2, the same was explained to the complainant by OP No.1 at the time of sale of cell phone.  The OP No.1 sold the mobile phone as retailer of the company i.e. OP No.3 and the problem as per version of the complainant started some times in second week of Apr. 2014 well after five to six months of use of said mobile phone.  Rest of the averments made in the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                 OP No.2 also contested the complaint by filing written statement taking objections that the mobile phone is having warranty under which the company can only repair the mobile in question. At this time, the said mobile is working ‘OK’ and ready for delivery.  It has been further submitted that the mobile phone is now ready for delivery but the complainant has not come to receive the same.  It has been prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs of Rs.10,000/- for harassing the answering OP.

5.                 On notice, none has appeared on behalf of OP No.3, therefore, OP No.3 was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 19.01.2015.   

6.                  In support of their version, the parties have tendered documentary evidence.  Complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex.CW1/A alongwith photocopies of documents i.e. service report dated 28.06.2014 Ex.C-1, bill dated 22.11.2013 Ex.C-2, warranty conditions Ex.C-3, IMEI numbers mentioned on mobile box Ex.C-4, copy of mobile box Ex.C-5.    

7.                  On the other hand, Sh.Vinay Bhatia Prop of OP No.1 has tendered his affidavit as Ex.OP1/A.

8.                 Sh.Pardeep Kumar Prop. of OP No.2 has tendered his affidavit Ex.OP2/A alongwith photocopy of warranty terms and conditions Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence.  

9.                  We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and prop/owner of OP No.2 and have gone through the record.

10.              Complainant has vehemently argued that mobile set purchased by him from OP No.1 developed problems of outgoing calls, with the restarting of the mobile phone, in catching of the network, with touch of the screen and with the on/off switch of the phone.  On 28.06.2014, he approached OP No.2 at the instance of OP No.1 and explained the problems in mobile phone for which he was assured by OP No.2 that either the mobile phone would be repaired or he will be given new set in place of old one.  The counsel for complainant has argued that complainant was shown an old mobile phone by Op No.2 which they wanted him to accept in place of the mobile he has handed over for repair.  The offer was not acceptable to the complainant and he refused it by saying that either new mobile set of the same model be given to him or an amount of Rs.12,000/- for which the mobile was purchased be refunded.

11.               Upon notice OPs No.1 put in appearance and filed written statement and tendered some evidence as well but thereafter stayed away from the proceedings and were proceeded against ex parte on 12.02.2015.

12.              Purchase of mobile set in question by the complainant is not in dispute.  The complainant approached OP No.2 on 28.06.2014 for repair of the mobile phone is also evidenced by Ex.C-1 which is service report.  Detail of problem developed in the mobile phone is also on record.  Though, complainant has claimed that he was offered an old mobile phone instead of the one which he handed over to OP No.2 for repair but OP No.2 has submitted in written reply and also during the arguments that the said mobile set is repaired and ready for delivery but the complainant never came to him to collect the same.  We have thoroughly considered the arguments advanced by the parties.  As the mobile set developed operational problems after six months of use it cannot be said that it had some manufacturing defects therein.  Under warranty mobile can only be repaired to make it workable.           

13.              In the light of our above observations and findings, the complaint filed by Heera Lal – complainant is partly allowed with following directions:-

          I.       The OP No.2 is directed to repair the mobile set in question to the satisfaction of the complainant and handed it over to him within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

          II.      OP No.2 is directed to extend the warranty period for another six months from the date of delivery of the mobile set as the said mobile set has been lying with OP No.2 from 18.06.2014 till date. 

14.              Let copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

 

Dated:  24.02.2015