| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.375 of 02-06-2016 Decided on 21-12-2016 Kamaljit Bansal, Advocate aged about 34 years S/o H.C Bansal R/o Street No.11/1, Ajit Road, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.Reliance Retail Limited, 2089/A-5, Ground Floor, The Mall Road, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager. 2.M/s Unitech, 2686, First Floor Opposite Jagmal Neuro City Scan, Old Bus Stand, G.T Road, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager. (Deleted) 3.Micromax Informatics Limited, Plot No.21/14, Block-A, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110028, through its M.D. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.Lalit Garg, Advocate. For opposite party No.1: Sh.Varun Gupta, Advocate. Opposite party No.2: Deleted. Opposite party No.3: Ex-parte. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Kamaljit Bansal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Reliance Retail Limited and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Micromax A311 (Blue) mobile handset for Rs.7937/- vide invoice dated 22.10.2015 from opposite party No.1, manufactured by opposite party No.3 with one year warranty. At the time of sale of the mobile handset, opposite party No.1 assured that it is of best quality and there is no complaint regarding its functioning. Opposite party No.2 is authorized service centre of opposite party No.3. It is alleged that from the very first day of purchase, the mobile handset is not working properly as its power button used to lock and it was not responding and it was giving the problems of internet connection, display and network. The complainant took his mobile handset to opposite party No.1 on 29.10.2015 and at the instance of opposite party No.1, the complainant approached opposite party No.2, who retained the mobile handset vide job sheet dated 29.10.2015 and returned the same to him by proclaiming that there was some problem of software, which was set right. After sometime, the mobile handset again started giving problem as sometimes, the name of the caller did not use to appear on screen and its screen used to show only mobile number of the caller even though the name of the caller was saved and similarly, in case of loading of any application, it used to take a very long time and while putting on charge or its usage for continuous period of more than 15/20 minutes, it used to become very hot. Sometimes, the display light of the mobile handset was not working and it used to give the problem of network and stop responding and sometimes, the complainant was required to restart it and its various applications used to stop responding in the range of wi-fi connection. The complainant again took his mobile handset to opposite party No.2, it retained the same vide job sheet dated 28.3.2016 and returned him the mobile handset with the assurance that there was some problem in software of the mobile handset, which has been set right. It was further assured that there will be no problem in it in future. As per complainant, the mobile handset was not working properly and it was giving new problems. On 14.5.2016, he again took his mobile handset to opposite party No.2, it revealed that there is problem in motherboard as well as software, but it returned the mobile handset by proclaiming that both these problems have been rectified and also revealed that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. As such, there is no improvement in the functioning of the mobile handset. He requested opposite parties to replace the mobile handset with new one as there is manufacturing defect in it, but they did not pay any heed to his requests. It is further alleged that opposite party No.2 has failed to provide requisite services. The complainant also requested opposite parties either to replace the mobile handset with new one or refund of its price, but to no effect. On this backdrops of fact, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and has prayed for directions to opposite parties either to replace the mobile handset with new one or refund of its price i.e. Rs.7937/- in addition to Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint. In view of statement of complainant, the name of opposite party No.2 was deleted from the array of opposite parties. Notice was issued to opposite party Nos.1 and 3. None appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it. Opposite party No.1 appeared through its counsel and contested the complaint by filing its written version. In its written version, opposite party No.1 has raised the preliminary objections regarding maintainability of complaint. It is pleaded that only manufacturer is liable for defects, if any. No cause-of-action is accrued to the complainant against opposite party No.1. As and when the complainant informed about the defect in the mobile handset, opposite party No.1 guided him to visit the service centre of the manufacturer for removal and rectification of the defect. Thereafter, he was directly dealing with opposite party No.2. He has not approached to this Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile handset, but all other averments of the complainant are denied. In the end, opposite party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavits dated 2.6.2016 and 23.8.2016, (Ex.C1 and Ex.C2); photocopy of retail invoice, (Ex.C3); photocopy of warranty, (Ex.C4); photocopies of job sheets, (Ex.C5 to Ex.C7) and closed the evidence. In order to rebut this evidence, opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ramandeep Singh dated 14.7.2016; (Ex.OP1/1) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and opposite party No.1 and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for the complainant and opposite party No.1 have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. Invoice, (Ex.C3) proves that the complainant has purchased the mobile handset from opposite party No.1, which is stated to be manufactured by opposite party No.3. The job sheets dated 29.10.2015, 28.3.2016 and 14.5.2016, (Ex.C5 to Ex.C7) prove that the complainant lodged complaint with authorized service centre of opposite party No.3 from time to time. The averment of the complainant is that there was some manufacturing defect in the mobile handset, but there is no evidence to prove any manufacturing defect. Mere allegations cannot prove any manufacturing defect. The complainant has further alleged that the authorized service centre of opposite party No.3 has refused to provide the services. Opposite party No.3 has not come forward to deny these averments of the complainant. The warranty card, (Ex.C4) proves that opposite party No.3 was also to provide services as per terms and conditions detailed in this document. The evidence of the complainant against opposite party No.3 is unrebutted and unchallenged. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No.3 and dismissed qua opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.3 is directed to repair the mobile handset in question as per terms and conditions of warranty. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 21-12-2016 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
