BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.8 of 2017
Date of Institution: 12.1.2017
Date of Decision: 8.12.2017
Sahil Makkar aged about 35 years resident of Meerpur Colony, Opposite Air Force Station, Dabwali Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. M/S Wadhwa Mobile Care, Near Jaipur Hospital, Circular Road, Sirsa, through its authorized person.
2. M/S Sai Enterprises, HTC Mobile Care, 1st Floor, Amit Gun House, Old Civil Hospital Road, Sirsa through its authorized person.
3. Corporate Office at M/S SSK InfoTech Private Limited, Plot 521, 1st Floor, Udyog Vihar, Phase-5, Gurgaon- 122001, Head Office at Leehan Retails Private Limited, 4 SSK Saphire Plaza, Pune Airport Road, near Symbosis College, Pune- 411014, through its authorized person.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sanjay Sihag, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
Opposite parties no.1 and 2 exparte.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that opposite party no.1 is authorized dealer, op no.2 is service centre/ customer care of HTC company and op no.3 is the insurer of the mobiles. That the complainant purchased mobile handset of HTC company Model No.HTC 1X( Dual Sim, Topaz Gold for a sum of Rs.27,500/- against bill No.2068 dated 26.7.2016 with guarantee of one year. It is further averred that on the suggestion of op no.1, the complainant got insurance policy of the above said mobile for one year against any kind of damage as well as loss from op no.3. That on 6.9.2016 at about 15.30 when the complainant was on bike and mobile phone was in his upper pocket of his shirt and suddenly a cow came in front of his bike due to which he applied brakes and complainant fell down and mobile of the complainant also fell down and got damaged. Thereafter, the complainant contacted op no.1 for solution of problem on which op no.1 advised the complainant to contact op no.2 and complainant contacted op no.2. That op no.2 checked the mobile handset and received the same vide job sheet no. HSS003-0004061 dated 9.9.2016 and after due satisfaction, he deposited the above said mobile handset and got repaired the same and demanded Rs.20,947/- for every type of services. The complainant was shocked to hear the above said version of op no.2 and then op no.2 disclosed that op no.3 has refused to pay the insurance amount of the said mobile. The insurance fee was duly paid by the complainant at the time of purchasing of policy from op no.3. The complainant paid the repairing amount and took the mobile from op no.2. That thereafter the complainant contacted ops no.1 and 2 several times and requested them to get redressed his grievance but to no effect. That due to act and conduct of the ops and deficiency in service, the complainant has suffered harassment and mental tension and the complainant has to purchase a new mobile handset for his routine activities. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel. Opposite party no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that op no.1 sold the mobile in question to the complainant but did not give any guarantee or warranty as alleged and same is given by the company and that he is not liable for any grievance of the complainant. It is submitted that complainant never approached to op no.1 and if the complainant would have approached to the answering op no.1 then the answering op no.1 would have tried his best to redress the grievance of the complainant if any through proper channel and the answering op has nothing to do with the ops no.2 and 3 in any manner. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. The ops no.2 and 3 did not file any written statement despite availing several opportunities including last opportunities and as such their defence was truck of.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, copy of cash/ credit memo Ex.P1, copy of tax invoice dated 16.10.2016 Ex.P2, copy of part description Ex.P3, copy of mobile insurance claim form Ex.P4 and copy of statement of complainant Ex.P5. The op no.1 did not produce any evidence despite availing several opportunities including last opportunities.
5. On 7.12.2017, when the case was fixed for arguments, learned counsel for ops suffered a statement that he has no instructions from ops no.1 and 2 to appear and their written statement be read on behalf of op no.3. Ops no.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
7. It is proved on record that complainant purchased the mobile in question from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.27,500/- on 26.7.2016 as is evident from copy of cash/ credit memo Ex.P1. The complainant in order to prove his case has also furnished his affidavit Ex.PW1/A wherein he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. The opposite party no.1 in its written statement has not stated even a single word that insurance policy of the mobile in question from op no.3 was not purchased by complainant through op no.1. It is proved on record that opposite party no.3 issued policy No. CIN 1609068758 and insured the mobile in question of the complainant on the date of its purchase through opposite party no.1. From copy of mobile insurance claim form Ex.P4, it is evident that mobile in question of the complainant fell down on 6.9.2016 and was damaged and the opposite party no.2 prepared estimate for the repair of the mobile in question for a sum of Rs.20,947/- on 22.9.2016 as is evident from Ex.P3. Then the mobile in question of the complainant was repaired by op no.2 and op no.2 charged an amount of Rs.20,947/- from the complainant as is evident from tax invoice dated 16.10.2016 Ex.P2. The evidence of the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged. The complainant in his complaint has prayed for refund of the amount of the mobile handset or to replace the defective mobile handset with new one which shows dissatisfaction of the complainant towards the mobile despite extensive repair for which the complainant had to pay huge amount to op no.2 on account of repair of the mobile despite insurance of the mobile in question. So, in our view the complainant is entitled to replacement of the mobile with new one or to refund of the price of the mobile in question.
8. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one of the same make and model or in the alternate to refund the amount of Rs.27,500/- i.e. price of the mobile in question to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum on the above said amount from the date of this order till actual payment. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. The complainant will deposit the mobile in question alongwith accessories with op no.1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member President,
Dated:8.12.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
