BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 615 of 2015
Date of Institution: 8.10.2015
Date of Decision: 03.05.2016
Sarwan Singh son of Manohar Singh, Pingalwara Complex, Village Manawala, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- Sudarshan International, 33-34, UB Jawahar Nagar, Bunglow Road, Near Hansraj College, New Delhi PIN 110007 through its Prop/Partner/Officer to receive the summons
- M/s. Spice Retail Limited Authorized service Center , Cell Point Shop No. 201, 2nd Floor, Sunrise Plaza, Cooper Road, Near Bakewell Bakery,Amritsar , Punjab through its Prop./Partner/Prop/Person to receive the summons
- M/s. Customer Care Executive C/o Spice Retail Ltd., Global Knowledge Park 19A, 19B, Sector 125 Noida 201301 UP
Opposite Parties
Complaint under sections 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : In person
For the Opposite Party No.3 :Sh.Ajay Mehta,Advocate
For Opposite parties No. 1 &2 : Ex-parte
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Sarwan Singh complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations, that complainant purchased mobile handset online from opposite party No.1 Spice Spice Stellar Android mobile phone for a sum of Rs. 9999/- vide invoice No. BBA141/14-15/175 dated 21.10.2014 IMEI/MEIDI 911319501429247, Model IMEI2/MEID3 after making the payment. As such the complainant is consumer within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act and is competent to file the complaint. Immediately after the purchase of the mobile handset , there was problem in the mobile handset that “Data Not Received Camera” and the same was given for repair vide service request No. 19100043EB0012 dated 3.11.2014. The mobile handset did work satisfactorily for some time but later on it again became non-functional. Copy of the job sheet is annexed. Thereafter the mobile handset developed another defect “Display Flash Light and Memory Card Problem” and it was again given to opposite party No.2 vide service request No. 19100043F70297 dated 27.7.2015. But, however, inspite of repair undertaken by opposite party No.2, the device remained out of order, copy of the service sheet is enclosed. Thereafter the complainant has been approaching the opposite party either for replacement or refund of the cost of the mobile handset. But, however, opposite party was not listening the just and genuine request of the complainant and flatly refused to replace or refund the cost of the mobile hand set. As such there is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant claims compensation to the tune of Rs. 20000/- for unnecessary harassment and mental tension besides cost of complaint. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party No.3 appeared and contested the complaint. While opposite parties No.1 & 2 despite due service did not opt to appear and contest the complaint and as such they were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
3. In its written statement ,opposite party No.3 took certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the answering opposite party No.3 ; That the present complaint is not maintainable. No allegations have been made against opposite party No.3 and in view of the same the complaint may be dismissed on this very ground alone ; That the answering opposite party possesses a goodwill and have an established market and have assumed a good reputation over the years in respect of the business . It is pertinent to be mentioned here that the allegations made against the answering opposite party in the complaint filed by the complainant , have false in nature ; That the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in an act for better protection of the consumer’s interests. But it does not appreciate the acts which certain consumers adopt to fulfill their illegal gains via means of the act i.e. pleading for extra compensation, damages etc. No person should be allowed to misuse the remedies available under this Act. In parawise reply, it is stated that whenever the complainant visited the service centre, he was given due and proper service and mobile handset was duly repaired and handed over to him in working condition . Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of the answering respondent. It is pertinent to mention here that answering opposite party provided limited warranty of one year from the date of purchase against any manufacturing defect. On 27.7.2015 the handset checked thoroughly and was duly repaired successfully. The complainant was intimated accordingly to get his handset collected from the service centre, but he never approached the service centre for collecting the handset. It is pertinent to mention here that limited warranty of the handset was about to expire in next few days and accordingly, the complainant is deliberately delaying the collection of the handset for lingering on the warranty period. In these circumstances, the complainant is make false story to mislead the Forum. Hence, present litigation is liable to be dismissed. In addition, complainant has so far failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the answering opposite party. Hence, in the absence of the same, no cause of action arises against opposite party No.3 and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
4. In his bid to prove the case complainant Sarwan Singh tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of retail invoice Ex.C-2, copy of job sheet Ex.C-3 and closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand Sh.Ajay Mehta,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.B.M.Aggarwal ,authorized signatory Ex.OP3/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.3.
6. We have heard the complainant in person and ld.counsel for opposite party No.3 and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
7. From the appraisal of the evidence, it becomes evident that the complainant purchased the mobile handset in dispute on 21.10.2014 vide retail invoice Ex.C-2 for an amount of Rs. 9999/-. It is also in evidence that the mobile handset went out of order and the complainant approached opposite party No.3 for getting the mobile handset in dispute repaired on 27.7.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C-3 and since then the mobile hand set in dispute is stated to be lying with opposite party No.3. It is the case of opposite party No.3 that the complainant has not been getting the mobile handset back even after its successful repair and opposite party No.3 is ready to hand over the mobile handset to the complainant as and when he desires. It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.3. There is no manufacturing defect in the mobile handset in dispute. Therefore, prayers of the complainant, that mobile handset may either be replaced or price of the same may be refunded, are not tenable.
8. However, it is the case of the complainant that he has been visiting the service centre i.e. opposite party No.3 for getting the mobile handset in dispute repaired. It is the case of the complainant that he visited opposite party No.3 on two occasions i.e. on 3.11.2014 and 27.7.2015. But, however, there is just one job sheet Ex.C-3 to support the case of the complainant. In such a situation, complainant at the best can be granted relief of repair to the mobile handset in dispute , to his satisfaction.
9. Consequently, instant complaint succeeds to the extent that opposite parties No.2 & 3 are under legal obligation to return the mobile handset in dispute after repairs , to the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant is also awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1000/- for mental agony and physical pain. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 are given one month’s time to do the needful ; failing which, complainant shall get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 3.05.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
