Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/37/2015

Harinder Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

AKS Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Ashish Gupta, Adv.

16 Feb 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No.	:	37 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	13.02.2015
Date of Decision	:	16/02/2015

 

Harinder Pal Singh s/o H.S. Jagdev, resident of House No.1301, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Complainant

 

V e r s u s

 

1. AKS Telecom, through its Authorized Signatory/ Owner, Authorized Service Centre of Karbonn Mobiles, Cabin No.6, 2^nd Floor, SCO 1104-05, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh -160022.
2. Karbonn Mobiles, through its C.M.D., 39/13, Off 7th Main HAL 2^nd Stage, Appareddy Palya Indiranagar, Bangalore-560038.
3. Jaina Marketing and Associates, through its Authorized Signatory, D-170, Okhla, Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-110020.
4. Madaan Communications, Shop No.11, Liberty Market, Railway Link Road, Amritsar

 

              ....Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:         JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                        MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:        Sh.Harinder Pal Singh, (Advocate), complainant,                     in person.

 

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.01.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant) and directed the Opposite Parties (now respondents), jointly and severally, as under:-

“In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed as under ;-

(i)    to hand over the repaired handset in question to the complainant, without any charges.

(ii)   To pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as lump sum compensation towards mental agony and physical harassment as well as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties jointly and severally within 45 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Parties shall refund the price of the   handset in question i.e. Rs.6,000/- to the complainant as well as compensation amount of Rs.3,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.”

2.       The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a dual sim Karbonn mobile handset, from Opposite Party No.4, vide cash memo dated 14.02.2014, for a sum of Rs.6,000/-. The mobile handset was having a warranty of one year, from the date of its purchase. It was stated that the said mobile handset was having problem, in its wi-fi connection.  As such, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1, for the rectification of defect.  It was further stated that the engineers of Opposite Party No.1, after checking the said mobile handset told the complainant, that the same was working properly. It was further stated that since the complainant was still facing the same problem, in the said mobile handset, he alongwith Sh.Jai Pal Sandhu, Advocate, approached Opposite Party No.1 and handed over the same to it, vide job sheet, Annexure C-3. The complainant was asked to collect the mobile handset, in the evening.  Accordingly, the complainant alongwith Sh.Simranjit Singh Chahal, Advocate went to Opposite Party No.1, to collect the mobile handset, but he was told by one person, who claimed to be the owner of Opposite Party No.1, that he had sent an email to the Company, at Delhi, in the morning itself, for sending the required part, to be changed in the said mobile handset. He further told the complainant that the said part would be received on 24.06.2014. As such, the complainant was asked to collect the mobile handset on the next day.  
3.       On 24.06.2014, the complainant again went to Opposite Party No.1, to collect the mobile handset, but he was told to collect the same after 15-45 days, as the requisite part was not available with it.  It was further stated that left with no other alternative, the complainant served a legal notice, Annexure C-4, upon the Opposite Parties, in the matter. Ultimately, the mobile handset was returned to the complainant, on 14.07.2014, stating that the problem had been rectified.   It was further stated that since the problem still persisted in the mobile handset, as such, the same was again handed over to Opposite Party No.1, vide job sheet dated 16.07.2014, Annexure C-6. The complainant was told to collect the mobile handset after 15-45 days.   It was further stated that Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, failed to repair the defective mobile handset, despite making several efforts. Subsequently, the complainant served another legal notice dated 17.07.2014, Annexure C-7, and requested the Opposite Parties either to replace the defective mobile handset or to refund the price thereof, but to no avail.
4.       It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, either to replace the defective mobile handset, in question, or to refund the price thereof, alongwith interest @12% P.A., from the date of purchase of the same; pay compensation, to the tune of Rs.25,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.
5.        In their written statement, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 admitted that the mobile handset was purchased by the complainant, from Opposite Party No.4, in the sum of Rs.6,000/-, vide cash memo Annexure C-1, which carried a warranty of one year.  It was stated that there was no manufacturing defect in the said mobile handset. On the other hand, there was a software problem, in the said mobile handset, which was rectified.  It was further stated that the said mobile handset was repaired and the complainant was informed to collect the same, but he failed to do so, for the reasons, best known to him. It was denied that any legal notices were received by Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
6.       Despite deemed service, none put in appearance on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 4, as a result whereof, they were proceeded against exparte, by the District Forum, on 29.10.2014 and 19.09.2014, respectively.
7.       The complainant and Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, led evidence, in support of their case.
8.       After hearing the complainant, in person, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 
9.       Feeling aggrieved, against the inadequate relief granted by the District Forum, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant
10.       We have heard the appellant, in person, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
11.       The appellant, in person, submitted that the mobile handset, in question, was purchased from Opposite Party No.4, on 14.02.2014, vide cash memo, Annexure C-1, for a sum of Rs.6,000/-, which carried a warranty of one year. He further submitted that the mobile handset was, in the first instance, repaired by an employee of respondent No.1, on 20.06.2014. He further submitted that then on 23.06.2014, the said mobile handset was again handed over to the authorized representative of respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1, for rectification of the problem and it was returned on 14.07.2014. He further submitted that since the problem in the mobile handset was still persisting, it clearly proved that it suffered from inherent manufacturing defects. He further submitted that since the problem in the mobile handset persisted, it was again deposited with Opposite Party No.1, on 16.07.2014, but since then it had been lying with it. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, the complainant suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, but the District Forum only awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/-, as lump-sum compensation, including the litigation costs, which is too meagre. He further submitted that the compensation should be enhanced to Rs.25,000/- and litigation cost be enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. He further submitted that the Opposite Parties be also directed to refund the price of mobile handset, i.e. Rs.6,000/-, with future interest @12% P.A., from the date of purchase thereof. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum be modified accordingly. 
12.       After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the appellant, in person, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. Admittedly, the mobile handset, in question, was purchased by the complainant, on 14.02.2014, from Opposite Party No.4, in the sum of Rs.6,000/-, vide cash memo Annexure C-1. There is also, no dispute, with regard to the factum, that the said mobile handset carried a warranty of one year, from the date of purchase thereof. It is evident from Annexures C-3 and C-6, copies of the job sheets, that the mobile handset, in question,  was handed over to the Opposite Parties, last time on 16.07.2014, for repairs of the defects, as it was suffering from wifi problem. Legal notice dated 17.07.2014, was also issued to the Opposite Parties, but the mobile handset was not returned to the complainant after rectification of the defects therein. It may be stated here, that no expert evidence was produced by the complainant, to prove that the mobile handset was suffering from inherent manufacturing defects. Had any expert evidence, in that regard, been produced by the complainant, the matter would have been different. The bald statement of the complainant, to the effect that the mobile handset was suffering from manufacturing defects, could not be taken as a gospel truth. Under these circumstances, the District Forum was right, in holding that the mobile handset was not suffering from inherent manufacturing defects, but the complainant was interested in replacement of the same. In our considered opinion, the District Forum was right in holding that it was a fit case, in which directions should be given for repair of the mobile handset, free-of-cost.
13.       No doubt, the complainant suffered mental agony and physical harassment, on account of the reason, that the mobile handset has been lying with the Opposite Parties since 16.07.2014, but they did not return the same, after repairs. At the time of grant of compensation, the Consumer Foras are required to take into consideration various factors. In the instant case, the District Forum took into consideration, the price of the mobile handset; the extent of mental agony and physical harassment, suffered by the complainant; and the injury caused to him, on the ground of non-return of the mobile handset, after repairs. The Consumer Foras are not meant to enrich one party at the cost of the other. The lump-sum compensation awarded by the District Forum, including the cost of litigation, in the sum of Rs.3,000/-in our considered opinion, could be said to be reasonable, adequate and fair. No ground, whatsoever, is made out for the enhancement of compensation and litigation costs.
14.       No other point, was urged, by the appellant.
15.       In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
16.        For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
17.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
18.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

16/02/2015

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 

 

Rg