Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/40/2019

Kulwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vishal Watch House - Opp.Party(s)

25 Mar 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHGARH SAHIB

                                                  Consumer Complaint No.40 of 2019

                                                            Date of institution:  20.06.2019                                                                    Date of decision  :   25.03.2021

 

Kulwinder Singh aged about 47 years S/o  Sh. Gurbachan Singh, R/o Village SangatpurSodhian, Tehsil & District Fatehgarh Sahib, having Aadhar card No.5131 5834 4721.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Vishal Watch House, Post office Road Sirhind, Tehsil & District Fatehgarh Sahib.
2. Zonal Office M/s Luxmi Communication, SCO 296, 1st Floor, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh.
3. Micromax Informatics Ltd., 288-A, UdyogVihar, Phase-IV, Gurugram (Haryana). (Telephone No.91-124-4811000).
4. M/s New Bawa Communication, MasaliWaliGali, Railway Road, Sirhind, Tehsil & District Fatehgarh Sahib.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Sh. SanjivDutt Sharma, President.  

Sh. Inderjit, Member

                                                         

Present :        Sh. Sandeep Kumar, counsel for complainant.

                      Opposite parties exparte.

                     

ORDER               Dictated by Sh. SanjivDutt Sharma, President.

                   The complainant (hereinafter referred as "CC") preferred the present complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred as "OPs") on the ground that CC purchased a mobile set Micromax Canvas 2 Q-4310 (Black) vide invoice No.808 dated 26.06.2017 by paying an amount to the tune of Rs.11,000/- with one year warranty. It is alleged that from the date of purchase the mobile set purchased from OP No.1 was not working properly. The CC approached OP No.1 four times but he did not satisfy the CC and even did not repair the mobile set properly. The touch screen of the mobile was running automatically besides having other defects in the mobile set. It is further alleged that despite several requests of the CC the OP No.1 did not supply any job card to him. The mobile set was within warranty period since it was purchased on 26.06.2017. A Legal notice was also served on dated 22.05.2018 & 25.06.2018.

2.                The CC alleged deficiency in service on the part the OPs and sought the refund of Rs.11,000/- and Rs.10000/- for mental harassment etc. The complaint of the CC is duly signed and verified and further the same is also supported by an affidavit of the CC. The OPs vide our separate orders were proceeded against exparte. The CC in support of his complaint tendered his affidavit as Ex. CW1/A along with photocopies of documents as Ex.C-1 to C-7.

3.                Since the OPs have chosen to remain exparte and have not come forwarded to contest the claim of the CC, we have no other alternative except to believe the contents of the complaint as well as documentary evidence submitted by the CC in support of his complaint. It is proved on the file vide Ex.C-1 that the CC had purchased the mobile set from OP No.1 by paying an amount of Rs.11,000/- on 26.06.2017. Further the CC had submitted Ex.C-2 dated 03.03.2018 showing that mobile hand set had a problem of restarts/reboots. Further we have perused Ex. C-3 dated 06.03.2018 wherein it is mentioned that display touch screen of the mobile of the CC is not working. We have perused the copy of the legal notice, Ex.C-5, sent to OP No.1, wherein the CC had demanded the refund of the payment of the mobile hand set purchased by him from OP No.1. We have also perused the reply submitted by OP No.1, Ex.C-7, wherein the CC was asked to withdraw the legal notice and further in the reply it was advised that the CC should approach the manufacturer.

4.                Since the OPs have chosen to remain exparte and evidence produced by the CC appear to be fair, reliable and trustworthy, in such a situation we have no other option except to believe the contents of the complaint. It is writ large on the file that the CC had purchased a mobile set from OP No.1 by paying an amount to the tune of Rs.11,000/- and the same had developed defects from the date of its purchase. It is also proved on file that the CC approached OP No.1 time and again for the redressal of his grievance, but OP No.1 every time was not able to repair the mobile or to refund the amount. Now the point for consideration before us is that whether the CC is entitled to the refund of Rs.11,000/- or not? We feel that Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent legislation enacted to help the poor consumers who generally get cheated by the businessmen. We feel that in this case OP No.1 cannot escape from his liability by simply denying the legal notice and saying that the CC, who is a poor villager, should contact the manufacturer and not him. We further feel that it was incumbent upon OP No.1, who was a seller and shop keeper, either to repair the mobile set or to refund the amount to the CC there and then. We feel that the consumer markets for goods and services have undergone a drastic transformation after the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act in 1986/2019 and increasing more and more liability of the manufacturer and even the shop keepers.

5.                Since we feel that the CC had purchased the mobile set from OP No.1, in that event, he is the person who is liable to sell a proper mobile to the CC, and it was incumbent upon OP No.1 to ensure that the mobile sold by him was not defective in any manner.

6.                In view of above, we allowed the present complaint and ordered OP No.1 to refund the amount to the tune of Rs.11,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization to the CC. OP No.1 is further burdened with a consolidated amount of Rs.3,000/- as compensation. We feel that since the complainant has failed to prove any evidence on any manufacturing and inherent defect in mobile, no case is made out against the remaining opposite parties. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs and thereafter file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dt.25.03.2021

 

                                                                                      (SanjivDutt Sharma)

                                                                                      President

 

 

                                                                                      (Inderjit)

                                                                                      Member