Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/180

Baljinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Friends Communications - Opp.Party(s)

Manjit Singh Sodhi

11 Feb 2019

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :         180 of 2017   

Date of Institution :    12.06.2017

Date of Decision :      11.02.2019

Baljinder Singh aged about 45 years, s/o Sh Charan Dass, r/o New Cantt Road, Street No.5 (L), Faridkot Tehsil and District Faridkot.                                                                    

.....Complainant

Versus

1. Friends Communication, Opposite Kotwali, Near Bhai Kanhaiya Chowk, Faridkot through its Proprietor /Manager.
2. Gionee Care Centre, Near Bhai Kanhaiya Chowk, Faridkot through its authorized signatory.
3. Gionee Head Office, E-9, Block B-I, Ground Floor, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

..........OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Ms Vandna Sidhu, Member,

               Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh M S Sodhi, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh A K Monga, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

              OP-2 and OP-3 Exparte.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to replace the defective mobile with new one or to refund Rs.14,500/- i.e the price of  mobile hand set and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith litigation expenses.

   2                                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on assurance of Op-1 that Gionee mobiles are of very good quality, complainant purchased one Gionee mobile handset, Model no.866714020394895 on 15.07.2015 for Rs.14,500/-from OP-1 against proper bill with one year warranty. It is contended that during the warranty period, some defects occurred in said mobile and it stopped working. Complainant immediately reported the matter to OP-1 and OP-2 and OP-2 kept the mobile with them and told complainant to come after a week and then when complainant approached OP-2 after a week to get back his mobile phone, OP-2 lingered on the matter on one pretext or other and asked him to come after about 10 days. Complainant again approached Op-2 after specified time and this time Op-2 told complainant that there is some manufacturing defect in said phone and he gave complainant a new mobile hand set having IMEI No.866714020358908, but complainant was distressed to see that after some days of usage, said new phone was also became defective. Complainant immediately approached OP-2 with request to replace the same, but again Op-2 asked him to visit after about 10 days and thereafter, complainant has been approaching OP-1 and OP-2 several times with requests to replace the said phone which is in their custody or to refund the cost price of said mobile phone but all in vain as OPs are not paying any heed to listen to his genuine requests, which amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has suffered great harassment and mental agony due to this act of OPs and has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief.

3                                                   Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 19.06.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                          On receipt of notice, OP-1 filed reply taking preliminary objections that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP-1 and therefore, complaint in hand is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is averred that as per terms and conditions given on bill, service if any is to be provided by authorized service centre only i.e by OP-2 and answering OP-1 is not liable for same. Moreover, complaint in hand is barred by period of limitation and warranty of product has expired. However on merits, Op-1 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that mobile phone in question was sold to complainant by OP-1 on 15.07.2015 vide bill no. 6932 and as per terms printed on the bill, the warranty if any, and the service required if any, was to be provided by OP-2, which is the authorized Service Centre of OP-3, who is the manufacturer and supplier of said mobile handsets. It is totally denied that complainant approached him with any complaint in his phone as complainant never came to OP-1. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

 5                                     Notice sent to OP-2 through Process Server was duly served, but despite having sufficient notice of complaint against them, nobody appeared on behalf of OP-2 either in person or through counsel to defend the allegations levelled against them by complainant. It is presumed that OP-2 is not interested in defending the case and therefore vide order dt 27.07.2017, OP-2 was proceeded against exparte.

6                                Notice containing copy of complaint alongwith relevant documents was sent to OP-3, but did not receive back. Case is called out for several times, but nobody appeared on behalf of OP-3 on date fixed either in person or through counsel. Therefore, after long waiting till 4.00 pm, OP-3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 3.08.20167

7                                        Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex C-1, affidavit of Sukhwinder Lal as Ex C-8  and documents Ex C-2 to C-7 and then, closed the evidence.

8                                                         In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Satish Vij, Proprietor as Ex OP-1/1, copy of bill Ex OP-1/2 and then, closed the same.

9                                                                 We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

10                                                    The case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone worth Rs.14,500/-from OP-1 against a proper bill and made cash payment. During the warranty period, some defects occurred in said mobile and it stopped working. On reporting the matter to OP-1 and OP-2, OP-2 kept the mobile with them and told complainant to come after a week and when complainant approached OP-2 after a week to get back his mobile phone, OP-2 lingered on the matter on one pretext or other and asked him to come after about 10 days. Thereafter, Op-2 told complainant that there is some manufacturing defect in said phone and he gave him a new mobile hand, but complainant was distressed to find that after some days of usage, said new phone was also became defective. Complainant immediately approached OP-2 with request to replace the same, but again Op-2 asked him to visit after about 10 days and kept putting him off. Grievance of complainant is that since then, he has been approaching OP-1 and OP-2 with requests to replace the said phone which is in their custody or to refund the cost price of said mobile phone but all in vain as OPs are not paying any heed to listen to his genuine requests, which amounts to deficiency in service. To controvert the allegations of complainant, OP-1 has denied all the allegations and asserted that complainant never approached him. It is further averred by OP-1 that complainant never approached him with complaint regarding defect in his mobile phone. OP-1 also stressed that he is only a shopkeeper who sold the said mobile to complainant and services regarding repair if any were to be provided by authorized service care centre of OPs and claim regarding defective phone was also to be paid by  OP-2 and Op-3 who is the manufacturer of said mobile phone and OP -1 has no liability to repair or to make payment of relief sought from him. OP-1 is not liable to give any relief as sought by complainant.

11                                       It is observed that there is no denial to the fact that complainant purchased mobile handset in question from OP-1 on 15.07.2015, which was manufactured by OP-3 and there was one year warranty for any defect in the said mobile handset. OP-2 authorized service care centre of OP-3 did not provide proper and sufficient services to complainant by doing effective repairs. OP-2 being authorized service care centre on behalf of OP-3 and Op-3 who is the manufacturer of said mobile phones did not bother to defend the case and thus, there is no rebuttal from the side of OP-2 and Op-3 and therefore, in these circumstances, only shopkeeper has no liability for providing relief to complainant as redressal sought is to be provided by OP-2 and 3. It is also brought to our attention that OP-2 has neither provided requisite services by making effective repairs nor has bothered to return the defective mobile in question to complainant and it is still in the custody of OP-2.

12                                         From the above discussion, we are of considered opinion that OP-2 and 3 are liable for deficiency in service and have cause huge harassment and mental agony to complainant. Hence, present complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-2 and 3. OP-1 is only a retailer and is not the maker of mobile phone in question and warranty, if any, is to be given by manufacturing company through their authorized Service Centres. So, OP-1 is not liable for any defect or for any claim sought by complainant. Therefore, complainant against OP-1 hereby stands dismissed. Moreover, mobile in question is still in the custody of OP-2 the authorized service centre of OP-3. Both OP-2 and 3 are directed to replace the mobile handset of complainant with new one of same model. OP-2 and 3 are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be liable to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum

Dated: 11.02.2019

 

 

(Vandna Sidhu)        (Param Pal Kaur)                 (Ajit Aggarwal)

                      Member                          Member                       President