BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.287/16.
Date of instt.: 15.09.2016.
Date of Decision: 10.04.2017.
Rajesh son of Sh. Abhey Ram, resident of Village Sisla, P.O. Sismor, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Dasmesh Jee Telecom, 2527, Hudson Line, GTP Nagar Delhi through its Proprietor, Dealer/Distributor of all types of mobiles and accessories including Micro Mas Mobile Phones.
- M/s. Parth Agencies (HAR), C/o City Centre, Ist Floor inside Railway Gate, Kaithal, through its Proprietor/Manager.
- Micro Max House, 90-B, Sector-18, Gurgaon-122015 through its Managing Director (Manufacturer of Micro Max Mobile).
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Brish Bhan, Advocate for complainant.
Op No.1 exparte.
Sh. Vinod Bura, Advocate for the Op No.2.
Sh. Sunil Dhull, Adv. for Op No.3.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a mobile set make Micromax Q 392 bearing IMEI No.91143865004455 for a sum of Rs.7700/- from Op No.1 vide invoice No.7893 dt. 12.02.2016. It is alleged that from the very beginning of its purchase, there was hanging problem in the said mobile set and he approached the Op No.2 for removal of said defect of hanging and the Ops No.2 and 3 changed the touch, functioning, display and board etc. from time to time but the said problem of hanging remained in the said mobile set. It is further alleged that the complainant also deposited the said mobile set with the Op No.2 on 16.06.2016 and 03.09.2016 but the defects were not removed from the said mobile set. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.1 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 28.10.2016. Op No.3 filed the reply, whereas ld. Counsel for Op No.2 made statement on 15.12.2016 to the effect that the reply filed on behalf of Op No.3 may also be read on behalf of Op No.2. Op No.3 filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint because the mobile set in question was purchased from Delhi. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 and Mark-CA & Mark-CB and closed evidence on 16.01.2017. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 made statement separately on 07.02.2017 that they do not want to lead any evidence on behalf of Ops No.2 & 3, so, the evidence of Ops No.2 & 3 was closed vide order dt. 07.02.2017 of this Forum.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant on 12.02.2016 became defective within the warranty period with the problems of hanging and display. He further argued that the complainant also deposited the said mobile set with the Op No.2 vide job-sheets dt. 16.06.2016, Mark-CB and 03.09.2016, Mark-CA but the defects were not removed from the said mobile set. He further argued that the complainant approached the Ops several times to replace the said mobile set but the grievances of complainant were not redressed by the Ops. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 controverted all the allegations contained in the complaint. Ld. Counsel for the Op No.3 argued that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint because the mobile set in question was purchased from Delhi.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, we found that the mobile set in question was purchased by the complainant on 12.02.2016 and the same became defective within the warranty period, as is clear from the job-sheets dt.16.06.2016, Mark-CB and 03.09.2016, Mark-CA. In the job-sheet dt. 16.06.2016, Mark-CB, the problems have been reported in the mobile-set “4907 DISPLAY BLANK DISPLAY” and similarly, in the job-sheet dt. 03.09.2016, Mark-CA, the problems are reported in the mobile set “4904 DISPLAY BLACK LINES”. The grievance of the complainant is that the defects were not removed from the mobile set. We found no force in the contention of Op No.3 that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. The mobile set in question was deposited with the Op No.2 i.e. authorized service-centre of Ops which is situated at Kaithal and the above-said job-sheets were also issued by Op No.2. Therefore, this Forum at Kaithal has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. The complainant has filed the present complaint in this forum on 15.09.2016 i.e. within the warranty period. Besides the above-said job-sheets, the complainant has supported his versions by affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and original bill dt. 12.02.2016, Ex.C1. Whereas, on the other hand, the Op No.1 was proceeded against exparte and the Ops No.2 and 3 did not produce any evidence and their respective counsel made statements on 07.02.2017 that no evidence on behalf of Ops No.2 & 3 is to be given. But the ld. Counsel for Ops No.2 & 3 did not close their evidence, so, the evidence of Ops No.2 & 3 was closed by this Forum vide order dt. 07.02.2017. So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against the Ops. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Ops have neither repaired nor replaced the said mobile set in question inspite of the fact that the same was within the warranty period and thus, are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
7. During the arguments, ld. Counsel for the complainant stated that the complainant has purchased a new mobile set and the mobile set, if replaced by the Ops is of no use for the complainant, so, in the interest of justice, the cost of mobile set may please be ordered to got returned from the Ops. In para No.5 of the complaint, it is mentioned that the Ops No.2 & 3 changed the touch, functioning, display and board etc. of the said mobile set from time to time but the said problem of hanging remained as it is and the complainant approached the Ops No.1 & 2 about 25 times for removal of defects and these facts are not denied by the Ops No.2 & 3. So, we found force in this argument of the complainant that he has purchased a new mobile set and if the mobile set is ordered to be replaced, then the same is of no use for him. In the authority decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana bearing first appeal No.460 of 2014 decided on 28.05.2014 titled as Deepjot Singh Vs. The Mobile Store, the Hon’ble State Commission has ordered for the payment of cost of the mobile set after deducting 30% depreciation. So, keeping in view the above citation, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of justice will be met if the cost of mobile set be ordered to be refunded after making 30% depreciation of the same.
8. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay Rs.5390/- the cost of the mobile set after deducting 30% depreciation i.e. (Rs.7700-Rs.2310/-=Rs.5390/-). No order as to costs. All the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of commencement of order till its payment. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.10.04.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
