Punjab

Moga

CC/17/25

Munish Kohli - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.G.Computer and Mobile World - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.K.Dhir

12 Jul 2017

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

                                                                                      CC No. 25 of 2017

                                                                                      Instituted on: 02.03.2017

                                                                                      Decided on:  12.07.2017

 

Munish Kohli alias Munish Kumar Kohli aged about 45 years son of Sh. Arun Kumar Kohli, resident of H.No.3/290, St. No.6, Dashmesh Nagar, Moga District Moga.

                                                                                ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       S. G. Computer & Mobile World, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Chowk, Bagha Purana, through its Partner/Prop/Manager.

 

2.       Arun Mobile Care, Kotkapura Road, Near Dev Hotel, opposite Shera Wali Building, Main Bazar, Moga.

 

3.       Best IT World (India) Pvt. Ltd., 87, Mistry Industries Complex, MIDC Cross Road 'A' Andheri (East) Mumbai- 400093 Maharashtra, India.  

 

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member

 

Present:       Sh. S.K. Dhir, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Opposite party no.1 ex-parte.

                   Sh. Arun Gulati, Proprietor for opposite party no.2.

                   Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Area Service Manager for opposite party no.3.

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against S. G. Computer & Mobile World, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Chowk, Bagha Purana, through its Partner/Prop/Manager and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to replace Tablet PC make I ball 72362GI, IMEI no.911358484020934 purchased vide bill no.2426 dated 14.06.2016 from opposite party no.1 or to refund the amount of Rs.6000/- i.e. the price of abovesaid Tablet. Further opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of compensation, damages, mental tension and harassment to the complainant or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper be granted.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased one tablet make I ball 72362GI, IMEI no.911358484020934, Colour Royal Blue, worth Rs.6000/- vide bill no.2426 dated 14.06.2016 from opposite party no.1 on 14.06.2016. At the time of delivery, the opposite party no.1 has given assurance that the said tablet is of a good quality and it will not give any problem/trouble. However, if there is any defect, they will replace the same as the opposite party no.3 has committed with them. They also gave one year guarantee on the said mobile against any manufacturing defect whatsoever. However, the said tablet was not working properly since the time of its purchase and it became headache for the complainant. The complainant approached to opposite party no.1, who directed the complainant to approach opposite party no.2 i.e. the service centre of company. Accordingly, the complainant visited the opposite party no.2, who instead of changing the tablet repaired the same and assured the complainant that they have repaired the tablet and there will be no problem in the tablet in future. But despite repair, the tablet was not working properly and became totally un-useable (dead) on 24.01.2017. Again the complainant approached to opposite party no.2 on 24.01.2017. Now, the said tablet is still lying with opposite party no.2. There is some manufacturing defect in the said tablet. Moreover, the opposite party no.1 charged excess amount from the complainant against the MRP price of tablet.  The complainant approached the office of opposite parties several times and requested it to replace the said tablet as there is some manufacturing defect in it, but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and refused to replace the same. Due to defective product, the complainant has to suffer loss financially, socially and economically. The services rendered by the opposite parties are deficient one and the complainant had been harassed unnecessarily. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party no.1 appeared in person at the first instance and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has got no locus-standi to file the said complaint against the answering opposite party; that no deficiency in service has been attributed to answering opposite party and from the allegations in the complaint no deficiency in service is made out; that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands, rather he has willfully concealed the material and patent facts from this Forum. On merits, it is submitted that they have got OK the said tablet and the message was conveyed to the complainant that tablet is OK and he can collect the same. But instead of taking the said tablet, he has filed this false complaint. All other allegations, made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

                   It is noteworthy that after filing written reply, none had appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1. As such, opposite party no.1 was proceeded against ex-parte.

4.                On the other hand, Sh. Arun Gulati, Proprietor has appeared on behalf on opposite party no.2 and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has got no locus-standi to file the said complaint against the answering opposite party; that no deficiency in service has been attributed to answering opposite party and from the allegations in the complaint no deficiency in service is made out; that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands, rather he has will fully concealed the material and patent facts from this Forum.  On merits, it is submitted that they has got ok the said tablet and the message was conveyed to the complainant that tablet is OK and he can collect the same. But instead of taking the said tablet, he has filed this false complaint. All other allegations, made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

5.                Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Authorized Representative has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.3 and filed written reply submitting that the present complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous, baseless and not maintainable in-law; that there is no cause of action whatsoever nature arisen to file the present complaint before this Forum; that the complainant has not approached before this Forum with clean hands and thus suppressed true and material facts from this Forum. Further submitted that as per their record the tablet slide 7236 2 G (IMEI no.911358454020934) of complainant was duly repaired by opposite party no.2 and kept ready for delivery. The said fact duly intimated to complainant through telephonic conversation a number of times however as on date complainant had not approached to opposite party no.2 for collecting the tablet. Complainant's tablet since long unnecessarily lying with opposite party no.2, as the complainant not came forward to collect the same. The reason for not collecting duly repaired tablet is to file false complaint and thereby extract the handsome amount from answering opposite party. The said practice required to discarded by dismissing the present false complaint. During the warranty period, the opposite party nos.2 & 3 have provided best and proper service to the complainant to his satisfaction and rectify all his grievances. On all occasions after being satisfied with the service of opposite party no.2, the complainant was duly collected his tablet from opposite party no.2 by giving acknowledgement on the customer issue slip of satisfactory to the service of opposite party no.2. The opposite party nos.2 & 3 will crave leave to refer and rely upon customer receipt as and when produced; that before filing the present complaint, the complainant has not issued any notice to opposite parties and in the absence of notice present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in law and liable to be dismissed; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as the registered office of opposite party no.3 is situated in Mumbai. The present complaint suffers from lack of jurisdiction; that as per record, the complainant first time after 5 months from the date of purchase i.e. on 8.11.2016 visited opposite party no.2 for the problem of battery swelling and opposite party no.2 duly rectified the said defect and returned his tablet on 16.11.2016. The said fact more than sufficient to disbelieve the story of the complainant. Further submitted that they repaired complainant's tablet and now same is in working condition, therefore, replacement of the same does not arise.
Further all other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

6.                In order to prove the case, complainant tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence. 

7.                On the other hand, Sh. Arun Gulati, Proprietor of opposite party no.2 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.OP-2/1 and closed his evidence. Whereas, Sh. Gurpreet Singh, Area Service Manager/Authorized Representative of opposite party no.3 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.OP-3/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP-3/2 to Ex.OP-3/6 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party no.3. 

8.                We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

9.                The case of the complainant is that he purchased one tablet from opposite party no.1 with a guarantee of one year. However, the said tablet was not working properly since the time of its purchase, the complainant approached to opposite party no.1, who directed the complainant to approach opposite party no.2 i.e. the service centre of company. Accordingly, the complainant visited to opposite party no.2, who instead of changing the tablet repaired the same and assured the complainant that there will be no problem in the tablet in future. But despite repair, the tablet was not working properly and became totally dead. The complainant again approached to opposite parties a number of times and requested it to replace the said tablet as there is some manufacturing defect in it, but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and refused to replace the same, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In reply, opposite party nos.2 & 3 submitted that as the product was under warranty, so they have provided best and proper service to the complainant to his satisfaction and rectified the defect in his tablet and on all the occasions the complainant was satisfied with the services of opposite party no.2. They submitted that the complainant first time after 5 months from the date of purchase i.e. on 8.11.2016 visited opposite party no.2 for the problem of battery swelling and opposite party no.2 duly rectified the said defect and returned his tablet on 16.11.2016. The complainant again submit his tablet with opposite party no.2 and the tablet of complainant was duly repaired by opposite party no.2 and kept ready for delivery. The said fact duly intimated to complainant through telephone a number of times, but the had not approached to it for collecting the tablet. As the tablet of the complainant is in working condition, therefore, replacement of the same does not arise.

10.              Now, it is admitted case of the parties that complainant purchased one tablet from opposite party no.1, which was manufactured by opposite party no.3 and the tablet of the complainant became defective after few days from its purchase. On it, the complainant approached to opposite parties for getting the tablet repaired. But opposite parties did not do the needful and failed to remove the defect in the tablet to the satisfaction of the complainant, despite the fact that the tablet was within warranty period. Opposite party No.2, being the service centre and opposite party no.3 being manufacturer of the product in dispute are under legal obligation to do the necessary repair of the product in question within warranty period. The stand of opposite party no.2 is that they duly repaired the tablet of the complainant and intimated him about the said fact, but the complainant did not collect his tablet, due to reason best known to him. However, from the perusal of job cards produced by the opposite party no.3 on record Ex.OP-3/2 to Ex.OP-3/6, it appears that the tablet of the complainant was suffering from some defects, which the opposite party no.2 i.e. service centre of the company is liable to repair. We are of the considered opinion that service centre of the company cannot deny to remove the defect in the product within warranty period and the customer is entitled to get his product replaced free of costs under warranty conditions.

11.              From the above discussion, the present complaint in hand is hereby allowed against opposite party nos.2 & 3 and they are directed to replace the tablet in dispute with new one. The opposite party nos.2 & 3 are further directed to pay Rs.5000/-(five thousand only) to the complainant as compensation as well as litigation expenses compositely assessed. The present complaint against opposite party no.1 stands dismissed, as he is only a retailer and the warranty is to be provided by manufacturing company. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated: 12.07.2017

 

                                                 (Bhupinder Kaur)                    (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                                               Member                                 President