…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Bhupinder Singh, complainant in person.
Opposite Parties No.1&3 ex-parte.
Sh.B.S.Sodhi,Adv.counsel for Op no.2.
ORDER
SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER
- The complainant purchased two spice mobile phones (Model Proton 5” Quad Core 13MP Android)from Home Shop-18 i.e.OP no.2 vide order No.985207587 dated 17.1.2016 and vide order No.985335555 dated 19.1.2016 for an amount of Rs.5999/-each(5999+5999=11,998/-)The said amount was paid in cash on delivery. It is averred that after the said purchase, the complainants faced various problems i.e. problem in signals while talking,speaker and mike problem, problem in charging and battery back-up, problem in voice listening etc. The complainants approached the service center of the company 7-8 times and on 22.4.2016, he deposited the mobile phone having IMEI No.911473350074800 & 911473350074813 for repair vide service request No.19102703G40054, but the OP did not repair the same properly. After some days the same problem occurred in the mobile phone and the complainants handed over the mobile phone to the service centre on 8.6.2016 vide ser vie request No.19102703G60011 but the OP did not repair the same and returned the mobile phone in the same condition. On 20.6.2016, the complainants again deposited the mobile phone with the service centre and after repairing the same, the service centre returned the mobile phone to the complainant on 21.6.2016 but the said mobile phone did not work properly.The 2nd mobile phone having IMEI No.911473350023286 and 911473350023294 was also having touch problem and the complainant deposited the same with the service centre on 9.5.2016 for repair but the OP did not return the mobile phone till the filing of the complaint. As a result, the complainant underwent a lot of problem physically,mentally as well as financially.The complainant also informed the OP no.1 through e-mail on 11.6.2016 and also sent notice through e-mail as well as by registered post on 20.6.2016 but to no use. Ultimately the complainants approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act( for short the Act),1986.
- On notice,OPs appeared through their respective counsels and filed their reply to the complaint. In its reply OP No.1 has submitted that whenever the complainant approached the service centre, he was given due and proper service and as such no deficiency in service can be attributed on its part. It is further submitted that the complainants deposited the mobile phones with the service centre on 22.4.2016 and 9.5.2016 and the mobile phones were thoroughly checked and repaired accordingly and the complainants were intimated through an automated SMS on their registered mobile numbers to get their duly repaired handsets collected from the service centre but the complainants did not collect the same, which clearly showed the malafide intention of the complainants for making monetary profit. As such no deficiency in service can be attributed on its part and it was prayed to dismiss the complaint. After filing written statement, OP no.1 did not appear and was proceeded against exparte.
Whereas ld. counsel for OP no.2 has submitted that the complainant placed an order for the purchase of two mobile phones one on 17.1.2016 and the other on 19.1.2016, which were duly received by the complainants. There was no deficiency in service with regard to the delivery of the products in question on the part of OP no.2.The role of OP no.2 is only to book and deliver the product in question and as such it prayed for the dismissal of the complaint against OP no.2.
Counsel for OP no.3 appeared but failed to file written version inspite of availing many opportunities and was ultimately proceeded against ex-parte.
- In support of their case, the complainants tendered in evidence Ex.CA the sworn affidavit of both the complainants alongwith other documents Exs.C1 to C7 and closed the evidence.
Whereas counsel for OP no.2 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, sworn affidavit of Sh.Sanjiv Mehra, Director of North India Top Co.Pvt.Ltd. alongwith documents Exs.OP1 and OP2 and closed the evidence.
- Op no.2 filed written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the complainants in person and the counsel for OP no.2 and have also gone through the evidence on record.
- Exs.C4 and C5 are the two invoices , whereby the complainants purchased two mobile phones from Op no.2 .Ex.C6 is the job sheet dated 20.6.2016 pertaining to mobile phone of Smt.Harpreet Kaur, vide which the complainants deposited one mobile phone with the OP no.3 who returned the mobile phone on 21.6.2016 after rectifying the problem. Thereafter there is no evidence on record to show that there ever occurred any defect in the said mobile phone.Ex.C7 is the job sheet dated 9.5.2016 relating to the mobile phone of Sh.Bhupinder Singh, whereby the complainants deposited the mobile phone with OP no.3.It is the case of the complainant that OP no.3 did not rectify the problem in the mobile phones whereas OP no.1 in para No.3 of its parawise written statement has clearly mentioned that as and when the complainants approached the service centre of the company, their complaints were properly attended to and due and proper service was given to them.The complainants deposited their mobile phones with Op no.3 on 22.4.2016 and 9.5.2016 and the mobile phones were thoroughly checked and repaired successfully and it informed the complainants through an automated SMS on their mobile phones to collect the duly repaired mobile phone but the complainants did not turn up to collect the same. Though the OP has argued that it informed the complainant through an automated SMS to collect the mobile phone after its repair yet has failed to produce on record any evidence to prove the same.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we partly accept the complaint of the complainants against OP No.3 only and dismiss the complaint against Ops no.1&2, with a direction to OP no.3 to return the duly repaired mobile phone of the complainant i.e. S. Bhupinder Singh without charging any amount from him as the defect occurred during the warranty period. OP No.3 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-to the complainants for the harassment undergone by the complainants alongwith a sum of Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules.Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:12.7.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
