DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA

Complaint No. CC/15/89 of 04/05/2015

Decided on 24/09/2015

Ashwani Dhiman, aged 35 years, S/o Sh. Man Chand, R/o #1389, Urban Estate, Ph-2, Patiala.

….Complainant.

Versus

1. Sahni Mobile Mart, Scooter Market, Bahera Road, Patiala, through its Proprietor.

2. Micromax House 90B, Sector 18, Gurgaon, PIN 122015.

3. M/s Ganesh Electricals, 37-C, Mansahia colony, Near 21 No. Phatak, Railway Road, Patiala, Punjab, PIN CODE 147001.

….Opposite parties.

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the

Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM

Sh. D. R. Arora, President Smt. Sonia Bansal, Member

Present:

For Complainant : Sh. Amar Singh Advocate

For Opposite party no. 2 & 3 : None

ORDER

SONIA BANSAL, MEMBER:

1. The complainant purchased a mobile phone set make Micromax, model A-350 on 03/06/2014 from OP no.1 for an amount of Rs.20,000/- vide invoice no.875. It is averred that after few months of the said purchase, the mobile set started giving problem and the same was given for rectification at the service centre but the defect could not be removed. Again the mobile phone set was deposited with the supervisor of the service centre to rectify the defect vide job sheets on 15/10/2014, 14/3/2015 and 25/4/2015. The complainant tried to approach through emails also for getting the problem set at right but the problem still persisted and mobile phone set is still lying with the service centre. After undergoing a lot of harassment, the complainant approached this Forum under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short the Act).

2. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against OPs no.2 & 3 only, who appeared through counsel and filed their reply to the complaint.

3. In their written statement, it is clearly admitted that the complainant approached OP no.3 for getting the defect having occurred in the mobile phone set, rectified and the defect had been properly rectified, whenever the complainant approached them. It is also mentioned in the reply that the mobile phone set in question is lying repaired and it has been informed to the complainant several times but the complainant is adamant to receive the value of the mobile hand set. It is further averred that the service centre is ready to hand over the new mobile hand set after receiving the same from the company after its approval. As such no deficiency of service can be attributed on the part of OPs because whenever the complainant approached service centre, his complaint was properly attended to and the problem was rectified. After denying all other allegations, going against the OPs, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4. In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and his counsel closed the evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OPs no.2 & 3 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh. Dhiraj Babbar, Prop. of M/s Ganesh Electricals and closed the evidence.

5. Parties filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and goine through the evidence on record.

6. Ex.C-1 is the copy of the invoice whereby the complainant had purchased mobile phone from OP no.1 on 03/06/2014. The complainant deposited the mobile phone set with OP no.3 on 15/10/2014 vide job sheet Ex.C-3. The complainant got back the repaired mobile hand set but again problem cropped up. Accordingly he deposited his mobile hand set on 14/03/2015 vide job sheet Ex.C-4 but the problem was not rectified upto the mark. So he sent an e-mail to service centre vide Ex.C-5 in which he requested to replace his mobile hand set at the earliest. In reply to this e-mail, service centre gave assurance of replacement, if authorized service centre confirms any manufacturing defect. Ex.C-6 is again the e-mail sent by complainant to the service centre and again they gave the same assurance to the complainant. Ex.C-7 is the copy of the job sheet dt. 25/4/2015. Since then, OP has neither repaired the mobile phone nor returned it to the complainant and the same is lying with it. On the other hand it is the plea taken by OP that as and when the complainant approached Op no.3, it rectified the defect and returned the mobile phone to the complainant as such no deficiency of service can be attributed on the part of OPs.

7. The complainant placed reliance upon the citation “Electro Audio Vision versus M/s Diddan Construction 2014 (1) CLT page 428 of the Hon'ble Meghalaya State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shillong and “Sony Ericsson India Ltd. versus Ashish Aggarwal 2008 (1) CLT page 15 of the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The first citation has got no relevancy because in our case complainant has impleaded OP no.2 the manufacturer of the mobile hand set whereas in the case of citation, it was not so. As regards the second citation, the defective hand set was replaced twice but it continued giving the trouble. The respondent demanded the refund of the price of the mobile hand set and the order in that regard was up held by the Hon'ble National Commission.

8. In our case OP no.3 has not been able to rectify the defect in the mobile hand set and the hand set is still lying with it and rather it is the plea taken up by the OPs that they are ready to replace the mobile hand set in case approval regarding the same from the company i.e. OP no.2 is received. Had the mobile phone been rectified, there is no reason why the same could not be handed over by OP no.3 to the complainant in the absence of which, we accept the complaint and direct OP no.2 and 3 to replace the mobile hand set with a brand new one of the same make and in case that is not possible, to refund the value thereof i.e. Rs.20,000/-. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is accepted with cost assessed at Rs.3000/- as compensation for the harassment and mental agony experienced by the complainant which is inclusive of the cost of litigation. Order be complied by OPs within a period of one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Pronounced

Dated: 24/09/2015.

D. R. Arora Sonia Bansal

President Member