Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/16/6

Om Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arora Mobile & Another - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Chanminderpal Singh, Adv.

30 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

 

                               Consumer Complaint No. : 06 of 01.02.2016

                               Date of decision                  : 27.05.2016

 

Om Parkash, aged about 47 years, son of Shanti Lal, resident of House No.4, PWD Colony Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar.

 

                                                                                     ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. Arora Mobiles Micromax, Check Point, Near Swarankar Bhawan, Rahon Road, Nawanshahr, Tehsil & District Nawanshahr, through its Proprietor (Service Centre)

2.  Mehta Communication Kalyana Cinema, Ropar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar through its Proprietor (Dealer). 

3.   Micromax Informatics Ltd, 21/14-A, Phase 11, Naraina Industrial   Area, New Delhi, 110028 (Manufacturer)

                                                                                 ....Opposite Parties

 

                                       Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                            Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                             MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

MRS. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

Sh. Chanminderpal Singh Advocate, counsel for complainant

O.Ps. No.1 to 3 ex-parte

 

ORDER

                                      MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Om Parkash has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’) praying for issuance of the following directions to them:-

i)        To hand over the mobile set after its repair or to replace the same with the new one and to pay Rs.10,000/- as damages, 

ii)       To pay Rs.5000/-  on account of deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, 

 

iii)      To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses along with expenses.  

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a new mobile set, of make micromax, Model A 104, bearing IMEI No.911416951077292279294, Colour Black, vide invoice No.1117 dated 17.01.2015 worth Rs.6600/- from the O.P No. 2, having warranty of one year. Since the O.P. No.1 is the service centre of O.P. No.3 and O.P. No.2 is the dealer of the O.P. No.3, therefore, the O.P. No.3 is vicariously liable for all the acts and conducts of the O.Ps. No.1 & 2. It is stated that in the month of November 2015, his mobile set started giving problem, as it would switch off automatically.  He approach the O.P. No.2 for removal of the fault, who directed him to approach the O.P. No. 1 for rectification of the fault in the mobile set. On 23.12.2015, he approached the O.P. No.1, who after checking the said mobile set assured that the fault of the mobile set would be rectified shortly and also assured that if the mobile set can not be repaired properly then it would replace the same with the new set. The O.P. No.1 had taken the custody of his mobile set and issued the service report dated 23.12.2015 and assured that the fault in the mobile set would be rectified and same be delivered to him within 2-3 days. But till date the O.P. No.1 has neither handed over the mobile set after its repair nor replaced the same with the new one. Hence, this complaint. 

 3.               None having appeared on behalf of O.Ps. No.1 to 3, inspite of issuance of notices through registered A.D. cover, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide orders dated 16.03.2015 & 04.05.2016, respectively.        

4.                On being called to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and closed the evidence   

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the file carefully.

6.                The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from O.P. No.2 vide retail invoice No.1117 dated 17.01.2015 Ex.C1 for Rs.6600/-, having warranty of one year. As it got defective in the month of November 2015. As per the advise of the O.P. No.2, he took the same to O.P. No.1 i.e. the service centre of O.P. no.3 for its repair. The O.P. No.1 after taking the custody of the said mobile set issued the service report dated 23.12.2015 Ex.C2 and told him to come after two or three days to collect the same.  The O.P. No.1 also told him that in case the mobile said could not be repaired, then it would replace the same with the new one. After two three days, he went to O.P. No.1 to collect his mobile set but till today, the O.P. No.1 neither handed over the mobile set after its repair nor replaced the same with the new one. The said act amounts to deficiency in service and therefore, complainant is not only entitled to get new mobile set in replacement but also is entitled to get compensation for the financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment and financial loss suffered by him along with litigation expenses. 

7.       The O.Ps instead of controverting the averment of the complainant have preferred not to appear before this Forum and accordingly, the O.Ps. were proceeded against ex-parte. As such, we have no option but to believe the averment of the complaint.

          From the retail invoice Ex.C1, it is evident that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from the O.P. No.2 on 17.01.2015. The stand of the complainant is that the O.P. No.1 did not return the mobile set in question after its repair. In support of his version, he has placed reliance on the service report dated 23.12.2015 Ex.C2. From the Service Report Ex.C2, it is apparent that the O.P. No.1 had issued the same. The said service report reveals that the mobile set in question is within warranty. In the said service report, there is one column, where the customer has to put his signatures on taking the delivery of the mobile set kept by the service centre for its repair. But the said column is found to be blank. Thus, the said document itself speaks that the O.P. No.1 had not given the delivery of the said mobile after its repair to the complainant. It may be stated that these days keeping mobile set is a basic necessity but the complainant has been deprived of its use because as the O.P. No.1 has not handed over the said mobile set to the complainant after its repair.  This act of the O.P. No.1 amounts to deficiency in service. Taking these facts into consideration, we are of the view that it is a fit case where the complainant is not only entitled to get a new mobile set in replacement but is also entitled to get compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment along with litigation expenses. Since, the O.P. No.1 is the authorized service centre of O.P. No.3, therefore, it being the manufacturer is vicariously liable for the act and conduct of the O. P No.1, thus we do not hesitate to conclude that the O.P.  No. 3 is also deficient in providing service and is liable to be compensate the complainant alongwith the OP No.1. So far as the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No. 2 is concerned in the complaint, it is averred that the complainant had purchased the mobile set in question from OP No. 2. Neither any specific allegation has been leveled against the O.P. No.2 by the complainant nor it has been proved against it, thus O.P. No. 2 cannot be said to be deficient in providing service and the complaint filed against it is liable to be dismissed. 

7.       In view of the aforesaid discussion we dismiss the complaint against the O.P. No. 2 and allow the same against O.P. No. 1 & 3. The OP. No. 1 & 3 are directed as under : -

1. To hand over a new mobile set as replacement to the complainant. 
2. To pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.

The O.P No.1&3 are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly or severally within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

 12.              The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated: 27.05.2016                                         PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                    MEMBER.