Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 432 of 19.10.2016 Decided on: 13.9.2017 Samneet Singh Sidhu S/o Hardyal Singh Sidhu r/o H.No.131/2, Raja Gurdit Singh Street, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus 1. Unicorn Infosollutions Pvt. Ltd.1st Floor, Mittal Building, Bhupindra Road, Near Columbia Asia Hospital, Patiala. 2. Phone Zone, Shop No.1, Behra Road (near AC Market car parking)Patiala. …………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.Y.R.Mangla,Adv.counsel for complainant. Opposite parties No.1& 2 ex-parte. ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER - The complainant purchased one iphone 6S(Rose Gold, IMEI No.353311071938041, Sr.No.DNRQGLQSGRY8) from OP no.2 on 26.11.2015 for an amount of Rs.62,000/- including insurance of the iphone in question. At the time of the said purchase, complainant was assured by the OPs that the price which he had paid included the price for the guarantee as well as insurance cover for a period of one year. The complainant was also assured that if any major problem occurred in the mobile phone during guarantee period, then the mobile phone would be replaced through the authorized service centre of the company. It is averred that of 16.8.2016, the said mobile phone started heating up near the hearing speaker area and after that the screen went off from the light and thereafter it did not start/work. The complainant’s mobile phone was in operation with his mobile No.9876834648 till 12:00noon on 16.8.2016. Immediately on the very next day i.e. 17.8.2016, the complainant visited the office of OP no.1 and got deposited his mobile phone with it against a service report. OP assured that the complainant would receive a telephonic call within two days from its Delhi based service centre but even after the lapse of 9 days, no such call was received. On 27.8.2016, the complainant visited the premises of Op no.1 and after enquiring about the status of his phone, he was given a reply that the screen connectors of the mobile phone had been disconnected and that is why the mobile phone was not repairable. OP no.1 also blamed the complainant he had got his mobile phone repaired from some outside shop. It is averred that after spending such a huge amount of Rs.62,000/- including insurance cover of Rs.3000/- only a fool person would get his mobile phone repaired from outside shop. On 7.9.2016, the complainant got served a legal notice to the OPs but the OPs failed to give any reply to the notice. The complainant underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment. The problem occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period as well as while it was duly insured and the OPs were bound to replace the mobile phone of the complainant which they failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986.
- On notice, OP no.2 did not appear despite service and was thus proceeded against ex-parte. Whereas OP no.1 appeared through counsel and after filing its reply to the complaint did not appear to give evidence and was ultimately proceeded against exparte. In its written statement, OP no.1 has clearly admitted that the complainant purchased the iphone 6S from Op no.2 which was duly insured but the complainant has failed to make insurance company as a necessary party. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of the case of the complainant, the ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone from Op no.2 on 16.11.2015 for an amount of Rs.62,000/-.The said iphone was duly insured and the said fact has been specifically admitted by OP no.1 in para 5 of its written statement (on merit). On 16th August,2016, the said mobile phone stopped working and the complainant got the same deposited with OP no.1 i.e. the authorized service centre of the company on 17.8.2016.Since 17.8.2016, the said mobile phone has been lying with OP no.1 who has neither repaired the mobile phone nor replaced the mobile phone. Op no.2 sold the mobile phone and also took the charges for the insurance of the same. Though Op no.2 did not issue any separate receipt for the insurance but the said fact has been specifically admitted by OP no.1 that the mobile phone in question was duly insured.
- In the present case, the problem occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period and also during the subsistence of the insurance cover and the OPs were bound to replace the same with a new one, which they failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part. Moreover failure on the part of the OPs to contest the claim of the complainant shows the indifferent attitude of the OPs to redress the grievance of the complainant.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OPs No.1&2 to replace the mobile phone of the complainant with a new one of the same make with requisite warranty and if that is not possible to refund the price of the mobile phone as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs.6000/- for the harassment undergone by the complainant and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.4000/-.Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED DATED:13.9.2017. NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |