BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.164 of 2016

Date of Instt. 07.04.2016

Date of Decision: 17.10.2017

Neeraj Walia son of Shri Rajinder Kumar, resident of E.G. 220, Bashirpura, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. VRP Telematics Private Limited, Khasra No.1097 3/3, Gali No.8, Main Firni Road, Village Kapashera, Near Fanad Nala, Delhi through its authorized signatory.

2. M/s V.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd, 184-B, Pocket E, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi-110096 through its authorized signatory.

3. Printer People, Centre Market, Ground Floor, Sai Chamber, Near Narinder Cinema, Jalandhar through its authorized signatory/owner Karanjit Singh.

..….…Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. Jatinder Sharma, Adv Counsel for the complainant.

OP No.1 and 2 exparte.

Sh. Karanjit Singh on behalf of OP No.3.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint filed by the complainant, wherein stated that while he going through an advertisement on Snapdeal on internet, he purchased Infocus handset bearing No.M330, which was got delivered to the complainant from the OPs No.1 and 2, on 26.08.2015, for Rs.8999/-. At the time of purchase, it was assured by the OPs that the mobile handset is given with warranty of one year and in case of any defects, the same could be replaced from the dealer of the mobile. The complainant used the above said handset with due care and instructions given by the OPs No.1 and 2 for sometime, but thereafter, the aforesaid handset started creating problems.

2. That the complainant was shocked to notice that the aforesaid handset was not working properly and got inherent defect and was continuously causing the problem in use. The complainant contacted the OPs No.1 and 2 and informed about the malfunctioning of the above said handset and OPs No.1 and 2 assured the complainant to rectify the same as the aforesaid handset is under warranty and the OPs No.1 and 2 further told the complainant to visit the office of Service Centre i.e. OP No.3. The complainant thereafter visited the OP No.2, the OP No.3 identified the defect in the said handset of the complainant and assured the complainant that the set will work in proper condition without any defect and problem and job card dated 22.02.2016 was also issued to the complainant and OP No.3 kept the mobile phone with them.

3. That thereafter, the complainant visited several times to the OP No.3 and repeatedly requested to do the needful and to rectify the defect in the said mobile and the complainant was told by the official concerned that the accessories of the said mobile were not available with them and when the accessories were available they will repair and inform the complainant accordingly. Till date, the mobile phone of the complainant has not been repaired despite several visits. In the month of March, 2016, the complainant visited OP No.3 and asked the official concerned regarding the fate of his mobile and he was told that the accessories of the said mobile were not received yet. The complainant requested the official concerned of the OP No.3 to get the handset changed with a new one, but the official of the OP No.3 refused. It is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid handset is not working properly and is having some inherent defect, for which none other than, the OPs are responsible and liable to compensate the complainant as the complainant has suffered a lot. The OPs are also responsible for causing mental tension, harassment and agony to the complainant and have failed to remove the defect of the above said handset, which is in warranty period. This act of the OPs by selling a defective mobile set having some inherent defect to the complainant and afterward was not changing the said mobile set with a new mobile set, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and even a legal notice was served to the OPs but they failed to give any reply and accordingly, the instant complaint was filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the mobile handset of the complainant or to refund the value of the mobile i.e. Rs.8999/- alongwith interest @ 18% from the date of its purchase and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony, tension and harassment suffered by the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.11,000/- towards the cost of the litigation.

4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs but despite service, OP No.1 and 2 did not come present and ultimately OP No.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.3 appeared through his representative and filed the written reply, whereby contested the complaint that the OP No.3 is neither a manufacturer nor a dealer, rather the OP No.3 is a service centre and further submitted that in order to prove inherent defect in the mobile handset, the complainant should have to bring on the file expert opinion but the version of the complainant cannot be admitted mere on surmises and conjectures and further alleged that the mobile handset was ready for delivery on 06.04.2016 but the complainant was not willing to take the custody of the same and filed a complaint before this Forum and further submitted that the complainant cannot raise a prayer for replacement of the mobile without proving that there is any inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile and the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied.

5. After filing the written reply, the OP No.3 did not come present and ultimately OP No.3 was also proceeded against exparte but later on at the stage of argument, OP No.3 again joined the proceeding.

6. In order to prove his case, complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

7. On the other hand, no opportunity was given to the OP to lead the evidence because the OP No.3 has joined the proceeding at the stage of argument.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as representative of the OP No.3 and also gone through the case file very minutely.

9. After considering the over all factors as put before us, show that the complainant purchased a mobile handset for an amount of Rs.8999/- and photostat copy of the retail invoice is available on the file Ex.C1, so the intimation in regard to purchase of the mobile set by the complainant is established and moreover, it is not denied by the contesting OP i.e. OP No.3. Now question remains whether there is any defect occurred in the mobile set, for that purpose, the complainant has brought on the file his own affidavit Ex.CA, whereby categorically deposed that a defect occurred in the mobile handset within the warranty period of one year and he made a request to the dealer for replacement of the mobile set, being reason there is an inherent defect in the mobile set but he did not replace rather referred to get it repaired from OP No.3/Service Centre and accordingly, the complainant submitted the mobile set to OP No.3 for repair, who issued a job sheet, which is available on the file Ex.C6, wherein the defect/problem mentioned in the job sheet is 'Not Power On'. The mobile set was deposited on 22.02.2016 and as per version of the complainant, till today the said mobile neither repaired nor returned to the complainant by the OP No.3, despite repeated visits, the version of the complainant is acceptable because there is no evidence came on the file from the OP to rebut the version of the complainant, no doubt the OP No.3/Service Centre alleged in the written reply that the mobile set is ready for delivery since 06.04.2016, if so then, any intimation should be given by the OP No.3 to the complainant to get the delivery but no such type of document has been brought on the file by the OP to establish that whether at any time, the OP No.3 informed the complainant that the mobile set is ready for delivery, if so then, it is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.3, which is the service centre, running under the control of OP No.1 and 2. The complainant alleged in the complaint that there is an inherent defect in the mobile set but in order to establish the inherent defect, the complainant is not able to bring on the file any expert opinion of the mechanic or engineer and in the absence of such type of evidence, it is difficult to accept that there is an inherent defect in the mobile set. So, under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for return of the repair mobile set.

10. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to return the mobile set of the complainant, which was deposited for repair, in a working condition to the complainant and further OPs are directed to pay compensation for mental agony, tension and harassment suffered by the complainant to the tune of Rs.7000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

17.10.2017 Member President