| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C.No. 123 of 20-07-2021 Decided on: 31-08-2022 Ranjit Singh aged about 53 years S/o Amar Singh R/o House No.7389, Street No.7, Mohalla Kikkar Dass, Ekta Colony, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus V.K Mobile Repair, Shop No.4, Court Road, M.C. Market Backside Bus Stand, Bathinda, through its Partner. Samsung Care Centre Near Hotel Krishna Continental, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda (Authorized Samsung Service Centre) through its Manager.
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 QUORUM Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Smt.Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present:- For the complainant : Smt.Amandeep Kaur, Advocate. Opposite parties : Ex-parte. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President:- The complainant Ranjit Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against V.K. Mobile Repair and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly, the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased one mobile Samsung MOI-3-32 blue bearing IMEI No.350813660521909, GSTIN:03AOVPK2421C1ZC for Rs.8000/- vide tax invoice/bill No.GST-55 on 30.12.2020 from opposite party No.1 at Bathinda. It is alleged that the performance of the mobile handset was not satisfactory as it was giving various problems to the complainant amongst major problems are display flickering and blinking on the screen display and keypad dialing. It is further alleged that the complainant many times approached opposite party No.2, the authorized service provider and brought the problem of the mobile handset to its notice on different dates. In the month of February, opposite party No.2 returned the mobile handset to the complainant by changing the screen only. The same problem persisted in the mobile handset and complainant again approached opposite party No.2 with the same problem, it returned the mobile handset without attending the problem whereas the mobile handset is defective and carrying the same problem and its performance is not upto satisfaction. It is further alleged that the complainant also got issued a legal notice dated 1.3.2021 to opposite parties through his counsel. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite parties to refund the cost of mobile handset i.e. Rs.8000/- alongwith interest @12% p.a. from the date of purchase till payment and to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony, harassment and botheration in addition to Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 26.5.2022, (Ex.C1); photocopy of bill, (Ex.C2); photocopy of legal notice, (Ex.C3) and photocopies of postal receipts, (Ex.C4 and Ex.C5). We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated her stand as taken in her pleadings and detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. The complainant has purchased the mobile handset in question for Rs.8000/- on 30.12.2020. Bill, (Ex.C2) proves this fact. As per complainant, the problems regarding display flickering and blinking on the screen display and key pad dialing occurred on his mobile handset and he approached opposite party No.2, but it returned him the mobile handset without doing needful and problems remained the same. He also got issued legal notice dated 1.3.2021, (Ex.C3) to opposite parties, but to no effect. All the allegations of the complainant are un-rebutted, un-challenged and no one has come forward to contest his claim. We have no alternative except to appreciate the complaint as well as the evidence of the complainant, which appears to be cogent, reliable and trustworthy. This Commission is of the view that a person spends his hard earned money on a product to use and enjoy it, but if the purchased product is defective and seller/manufacturer does not do the needful on asking/requests, then there is clear cut deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of seller/manufacturer. Only sale of a product should not be the only motive of seller/manufacturer, rather after sale service is also their liability. Although, the mobile handset was purchased from opposite party No.1 and as per invoice, (Ex.C2), warranty is by company and service centre only, but opposite party No.1 has also acted as agent of manufacturing company being its authorized dealer. It cannot be exonerated from its liability. It has to carry out needful on behalf of manufacturing company i.e. principal. The liability of principal and agent is joint and several as there is nothing on record to show that the relationship of opposite party No.1 and 2 is on principal to principal basis. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to repair the mobile handset in question as per terms and conditions of warranty. In case, opposite parties are not able to repair the mobile handset in question, then they will replace the mobile handset with new mobile handset of same model and specifications. In case, opposite parties are unable to replace the mobile handset as ordered above, then to refund its price i.e. Rs.8000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of order till realization. The compliance of this order be made jointly and severally by opposite parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which amount of compensation shall also carry interest @ 8% per annum till realization. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 31-08-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh)
President (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
