Haryana

Panchkula

CC/99/2018

DEEPAK KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHREE KRISHNA ENTERPRISES. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON

10 Apr 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	99 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	25.05.2018
Date of Decision	:	10.04.2019

 

Deepak Kumar, Aged 29 years son of Sh. Bhushan Kumar, resident of House No.1193, Sector 19, Panchkula, Haryana.

 

                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

1. Shree Krishna Enterprises, DSS No.321, Sector 20, Panchkula, Haryana (through its owner).

 

2. Navya enterprises, Cabin-11, 1^st Floor, SCO No.66, Sector-11, Near IDBI Bank, Panchkula, Haryana (Authorized Service Centre of Comio Mobiles), through its Proprietor.

 

3. VSUN Mobile Private Limited, Plot No.2, Sector 8, Industrial Area, Bawal, Haryana, 123501, (Manufacturer of Comio Mobiles) through its Managing Director.                                                                    

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Mr.Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person. 

                        OPs No.1 and 3 already ex-parte vide order dated 04.12.2018.

                        OP No.2 already ex-parte vide order dated 06.02.2019.

 

 

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.     The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that the complainant purchased a new Comio S-1 Smartphone Mobile (IMEI No.1:911589309545200 & IMEI 2:911589309545218) amounting to Rs.8800/- from the OP No.1 vide bill/invoice No.GST-1940 dated 23.02.2018. The complainant used the mobile very carefully and as per guidelines given in the user guide, but despite that from the very first day, the said mobile was not working properly and started giving problems of screen touch, auto switches off, hear up, hanging problem, network drop and further incoming speaker was also not working properly. So, the complainant approached the OP No.1 for the same, but the OP No.1 put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the complainant visited the shop of the OP No.1 several times for removal of the said defect in the said mobile, but the OP No.1 did not pay any heed and at last advised the complainant to visit the OP No.2 for the service of the said mobile, as after sale service is the duty of OP No.2 as it is the authorized service centre of the OP No.3.  Thereafter, on 10.05.2018, the complainant visited the OP No.2 (Service Centre) for rectifying the said defects and the OP No.2 had taken the mobile set in question and assured the complainant to rectify the defects from the mobile set within one week. On 18.05.2018, when the complainant visited the OP No.2, the OP No.2 handed over the mobile set to the complainant; when the complainant checked the mobile set in question, he was shocked as the defects were not rectified. The complainant told about this to the OP No.2, but he did not give any satisfactory answer to the complainant and reused to repair the same. The complainant handed over the mobile in question to the OP No.2 because as the defect was not rectified from the mobile set but the OP No.2 flatly refused to repair the said mobile; this act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part; hence, this complaint.

2.     Notices were issued to the OPs No.1 and 3 through registered post on 02.11.2018 (vide registered post No.RH355118603IN to OP No.1 and registered post No.RH335953133IN to OP No.3). Notice was issued to the OP No.2 through registered post on 29.12.2018 (vide registered post No.EH783526290IN to OP No.2. The said notices were not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notices to OPs No.1 to 3; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of Ops No.1 to 3, (OPs No.1 and 3) & OP No.2 were proceeded ex-parte by this Forum vide its order dated 04.12.2018 and 06.02.2019 (OP No.2), respectively.

3.     To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA along with documents Annexure C-1 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.     We have heard the complainant and gone through the record minutely and carefully. 

        During arguments the complainant reiterated the facts and version as contained in the complaint, affidavit Annexure CA and document Annexure C-1 and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

        It is evident that the complainant purchased a new Comio S-1 Smartphone Mobile (IMEI No.1:911589309545200 & IMEI 2:911589309545218) amounting to Rs.8800/- from the OP No.1 vide bill/invoice No.GST-1940 dated 23.02.2018 (Annexure C-1). The complainant has alleged that the said mobile set became defective and he faced the problem of screen touch, auto switches off, heat up, hanging problem, network drop and incoming speaker while using the above said set. The complainant has not adduced any job-sheet or any other report with regard to alleged defect in the purchased set. However, the OPs have not controverted or rebutted the contention of the complainant. The complainant has claimed the refund of the cost price of handset i.e. Rs.8800/-.

5.     The OPs did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded ex-parte, for which adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them. The non-appearance of the OPs despite notice shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

On the other hand, the version of the complainant is fully supported and corroborated by his affidavit Annexure CA, along with document Annexure C-1.

6.     In view of the fact that the OPs neither responded to the notice nor have they opted to controvert the precise cognizable averments made by the complainant having a very relevant bearing upon the adjudication of the grievance, the only distilled view is that the complainant has been able to prove the genuineness of the grievance that the OPs had committed deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been detailed in the complaint, as also the affidavit in support thereof. With regard to liability of the OP No.1 we may rely upon the order of Hon’ble State Commission, West Bangal in case titled as Printer Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kartick Chandra Das and others., 2017(3) CLT 411, wherein it has been held that the dealer is equally responsible along with manufacturer to supply the defect free goods to the consumers so that the later get proper value of their hard-earned money. Thus, we hold that all the OPs are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency and unfair trade practice.  Hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

7.     As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions:-

1. That the OPs shall refund the cost of mobile in question i.e. Rs.8800/- to the complainant without any interest.  

2. The Op shall pay a lump sum amount of Rs.2000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation charges.

8.     The OPs shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OPs failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the OPs. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.  

 

Announced

10.04.2019     Dr.Sushma Garg   Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal

                            Member              Member                              President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                         Satpal

                                         President