Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/105/2016

Guriqbal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab Mobile Hut - Opp.Party(s)

Sh B S Dhaliwal

28 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No.105 of 2016

                                                     Date of institution : 04.11.2016                          

                                                      Date of decision    : 28.02.2017

Guriqbal Singh aged about 26 years son of Late Sh. Balbir Singh resident of village Lakha Singh Wala Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab Mobile Hut, Near Ladies Park, Gole Market Mandi Gobindgarh Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, through its authorized signatory.
2. Apps Daily Solution Pvt. Ltd., Near 22 Number Phatak, Sewak Shopping Plaza, Shop No.9-A, Near Sahni Bakery, Patiala District Patiala, through its authorized signatory.
3. Apps Daily Solution Pvt. Ltd. D-3137-39, Oberoi Garden Estate, Chandivali Farm Road Andheri (E) Mumbai-400072 through its Authorized signatory.

 …..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.                                           

Quorum

Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                            

Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

Present :        Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.            

                      Opposite parties exparte.       

ORDER

 

By Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

                      Complainant, Guriqbal Singh aged about 26 years son of Late Sh. Balbir Singh resident of village Lakha Singh Wala Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant purchased a dual sim mobile C-5 Sony IMEI No.352192072262040 for Rs.26,500/- on 13.11.2015 from OP No.1,  who gave guarantee for one year and also got insured the mobile hand set with OP No.3. Thereafter on 19.02.2016 the mobile hand set became defective and it creates display problem and screen not working. The complainant approached OP No.1 and requested to either remove the defect or to change the said mobile with new one. OP No.1 suggested the complainant to approach OP No.2 for its repair/removal of defect.  Thereafter the complainant approached OP No.2 and requested to either remove the defect or to change the mobile hand set. OP No.2 retained the mobile hand set for removal of defect and after few days OP No.2 returned the same to the complainant after repair. Thereafter on 29.08.2016 the mobile hand set again became defective i.e. touch not working. The complainant again approached OP No.1, who after inspecting the mobile hand set told the complainant that the IMEI number of the mobile hand set has been changed and suggested the complainant to approach OP No.2.  The complainant again approached OP No.2 and asked about change of IMEI number of the mobile hand set. OP No.2 told the complainant that IMEI number has been changed inadvertently and assured the complainant that they will replace the said IMEI number. But instead of doing the needful, OP No.2 is postponing the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused to remove the defect or to change the mobile hand set. The said illegal and reckless act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages due to negligent acts and deficiency in service, Rs.1000/- as costs of harassment, Rs.5500/- as counsel fee and Rs.500/- as misc. expenses.
3. Notices of the complaint were issued to the OPs. But OPs chose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence, OPs were proceeded against exparte.
4.           In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 along with copies of documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-10  and closed the evidence.
5.           The Ld. counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant purchased a dual sim mobile set for Rs.26,500/-, vide bill No.1557 dated 13.11.2015 from OP No.1 with warranty of one year, who also got insured the mobile hand set with OP No.2 and 3 by paying premium of Rs.1,999/- providing add on guarantee of one year against all risks insurance against theft, burglary, physical damage including fluid damage. The mobile set developed defect of display and screen in February 2016. It was repaired by OP No.2, but it again developed defective in August 2016. When the complainant approached OP No.1 for repair, he was told that IMEI number of mobile set was changed. Then OP No.2 was approached for repair of the set and for rectification of the IMEI number. OP No.2 neither repaired the set nor rectified the IMEI number on one pretext or the other. This act on the part of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The OPs have deliberately refused to repair or replace the defective mobile set even though the mobile was under warrantee and guarantee. The complainant has not been able to use his mobile set inspite of having spent a huge amount on purchase and insurance. The Ld. counsel pleaded for acceptance of his complaint and penalizing the OPs for causing mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant, despite knowing the facts that the mobile hand set was found to be defective and was under warranty and guarantee and that the IMEI number had been intentionally changed.
6.           OPs were given due notice and summons were presumed to be duly served, since they were not received back unserved/unclaimed. OPs did not appear at any stage during the pendency of the complaint. Their non-appearance is nothing but an admission of the facts stated in the complaint from their own side.  

7.                   After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the complainant and the oral argument, we find that there is force in the submissions of the ld. counsel for the complainant. The OPs have time and again failed to repair/rectify the problem in the said mobile set despite it being in the warranty/guarantee period.

8.                   In view of our above discussions we accept the present complaint and find that the OPs have committed deficiency in service by not repairing/rectifying or replacing the said mobile set. Hence, we direct the OPs to replace the mobile hand set in question with a new one of the same value or refund the amount of Rs.26,500/- within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. Complainant is also held entitled to the damages suffered by him on account of harassment and mental agony. The damages are assessed at Rs.5000/- for mental agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.2500/-. The damages and the costs may be paid within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. If the orders are not complied within the stipulated period, it will carry 9% interest on the total amount of Rs.34,000/-       (Rs.26500+5000+2500) till its realization.

9.                   The arguments on the complaint were heard on 23.02.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:28.02.2017

(Veena Chahal)              Member

 

      (A.B.Aggarwal)              Member