BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.

Complaint Case No.238/2016.

Date of Instt.: 08.09.2016.

Date of Decision: 18.01.2017.

Manjit Kumar son of Sahib Chan resident of Hijrawan Khurd Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

..Complainant

     Versus

1. Care Centre Technomind Mobiles Market Palika Bazar, Fatehabad, District Fatehabad.

2. Intex Technologies India Private Limited D-18/2 Okhala Industries Area Phase-11 New Delhi 110020 India.

..Opposite Parties.

Before:        Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                   Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.      

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Sh. Parshant Sharma, counsel for opposite parties.

ORDER

           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (herein after to be referred as ‘OPs’).

2.                  Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant had purchased a mobile from Khurana Mobiles, Fatehabad but when the same did not work properly then he had filed a complaint before Consumer Forum, Fatehabad. Said complaint was compromised and the Op No.2 had given a new mobile bearing IMEI No.911437403731500 with fresh guarantee and warrantee. It has been further averred that the replaced mobile also started creating problems qua ‘auto off’; therefore, the complainant took the mobile to service centre- OP No.1 which checked the mobile and kept the same with it by issuing job sheet No.608311012017 dated 31.08.2016 and asked him to collect the same within 15/20 days as it needs replacement from company. It has been further averred that earlier also the service centre had provided three mobiles but all of them also went out of order and the same were also deposited with OP No.1.  The complainant requested the OPs to refund the cost of the mobile as they have failed to redress his grievance but to no avail.  The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit as Ex.C1 and document Annexure C-1/A.

3.                On notice, OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint of the complainant by fling joint reply wherein it has been submitted that the company provides one year warranty of the unit subject to some conditions and warranty of the unit becomes void in the following conditions:

                   1.Liquid logged/water logging

                   2.Physically damage.

                   3.Serial No. missing

                   4.Tampering

                   5.Mishandling/burnt etc.

The company is ready to repair the unit as per its policy because the warranty means only repair and not replacement.  The system of the company runs through online and it recorded each and every entry but the complainant has never visited the service centre because no fresh record has been found in the system of the company as it runs online. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and the complainant has never been harassed. It has been further submitted that the OPs are ready to replace the handset of the complainant with another upgraded mobile despite the fact that the handset is running properly but under the garb of this complaint the complainant wants to grab money from the OPs. Other allegations made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. Objections about cause of action, maintainability, locus standi and concealment of material facts from this Forum etc. have also been taken. No evidence has been led on behalf of the OPs.

4.                We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for OPs and have perused the case file carefully.

5.                There is no dispute that the complainant had earlier filed a complaint before this Forum and the same was compromised and in lieu thereof the complainant was provided with a new mobile with fresh warrant/guarantee of one year.  The complainant has come with the plea that the replaced handset also did not work properly and the same was deposited with the OP No.1 but the OPs neither repaired the same nor refunded the cost thereof. In his complaint the complainant has specifically mentioned that the OPs had provided three mobiles but all were faulty.  Though, the OPs have contested the complaint but their act and conduct show that instead of satisfying the consumer they are trying to escape from the liability by making various lame grounds which are not supported with any reliable and cogent evidence. On one hand, the OPs are claiming themselves as reputed company and responsible service centre but on the other hand they have been failed to remove the defects from the mobile set which went out of order during warranty period. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly reveals that how negligent they are in doing the needful to the mobile set in question forcing the complainant to approach this Forum. This forum feel concerned that these days in fast life style of society, cellular set has become part and partial of every person and due to huge demand of mobiles the companies are attracting the customers by adopting different modes of advertisements but at the same time after selling the mobile set oftenly customers as well as consumers face a lot of problem even after paying the full cost of mobile set. Beneficiary companies availing huge amount in the shape of profit are duty bound to provide proper services till the last satisfaction of the customer.   In totality, the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 to 3 as defined in Sections 2 (f) and 2 (g) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

6.                Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund the cost of the mobile to the complainant. We also direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as compensation to the complainant for harassment including litigation expenses.  Order of this Forum be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount of   Rs.4700/- (refund amount of the mobile in question) will carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of order till actual realization.  Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                                     Dated:18.01.2017

     (Raghbir Singh)                                                                                                                                   

  District Consumer Disputes                                                           

   Redressal, Forum, Fatehabad.                          Ansuya Bishnoi

                                                                                   Member