DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 37/2017
Date of Institution : 27.03.2017
Date of Decision : 23.02.2018
Baldev Singh son of Ex-Sarpanch, now Panch Sucha Singh Subedar, resident of VPO Cheema, Patti Waraich, Tehsil and District Barnala. …Complainant
Versus
1. Kumar Telecom, Near New Bus Stand, Barnala through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Micro Repair Centre, Handiaya Bazaar, Barnala through its Authorized Signatory/Person.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Baldev Singh complainant in person.
Opposite party No. 1 exparte.
Sh. VS Duggal counsel for opposite party No. 2.
Quorum.-
1. Shri Sukhpal Singh Gill : President
2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SUKHPAL SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT):
The complainant Baldev Singh has filed the present complaint against M/s Kumar Telecom, Barnala and another opposite parties under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The brief facts of the present complaint are that on 15.9.2015 complainant had purchased mobile set of Micro D-321 for a sum of Rs. 4,800/- from the opposite party No. 1 vide retail invoice No. 2142 dated 15.9.2015.
3. It is submitted that mobile set of the complainant developed defect and it was shown to opposite party No. 1 on 20.8.2016 but the person sitting in the shop directed the complainant to deposit the mobile set with opposite party No. 2 and accordingly the complainant deposited the mobile set with the opposite party No. 2 on the same day and person who attended the complainant given assurance that he will got replace the said mobile from the company. On 20.2.2017 the opposite party No. 2 refused to replace the said mobile set with the brand new and demanded the repair charges and further asked the complainant to take the old set after making the payment of repair charges.
4. It is further submitted that the mobile set was purchased by the complainant to manage day to day affairs but due to defect developed in the said mobile set he has been deprived from getting the services of the mobile set. Further, the act of the opposite parties caused mental tension and financial loss to the complainant and it is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint is filed by the complainant for seeking the following reliefs.-
1) For directing the opposite parties to get replaced the said mobile set with the brand new or to refund the amount of Rs. 4,800/-.
2) To pay Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and financial loss.
3) To pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs of proceedings.
5. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite party No. 1 initially appeared before this Forum but later on none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 1, so the opposite party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.5.2017.
6. The opposite party No. 2 filed written statement taking preliminary objections on the grounds that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant never approached the Authorized Service Center regarding any defect. The complainant alleged defect in the hand set without adducing any documentary evidence. The complaint is mis-joinder of necessary party. Further, the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and not disclosed as to how the handset became defective and what were the defects in the handset.
7. On merits it is submitted that it is denied that complainant approached the answering opposite party No. 2. The complainant not filed any job sheet. The answering opposite party never denied to provide after sale service and still ready to provide the same as assured under the terms of warranty. There is no defect in the handset of the complainant and service center is still ready to provide the service. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Lastly they prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
8. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of repair receipt Ex.C-2, copy of invoice dated 15.9.2015 Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.
9. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party No. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Jagjit Singh Manager Micromax Service Center, Barnala Ex.OP-2/1 and closed the evidence.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by the complainant and the opposite party No. 2.
11. To support his case the complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1 in which he has reiterated his case as mentioned in the complaint. Ex.C-3 is the copy of bill No. 2141 dated 15.9.2015 vide which it is clearly proved that the complainant purchased the mobile set Micromax D321 from the opposite party No. 1 for Rs. 4,800/- on 15.9.2015 and the name of the complainant is also mentioned on this bill. Ex.C-2 is the repair receipt as alleged by the complainant and in this receipt the name and address of the complainant is mentioned. Further, in this receipt Ex.C-2 model of mobile set of the complainant is also mentioned alongwith expenses of Rs. 1,100/-. Further, on this receipt address of opposite party No. 2 is also mentioned. This document Ex.C-2 bears the date 20.8.2016 which proved that mobile set of the complainant had become defective within warranty period, so he contacted the opposite party No. 2 or opposite party No. 1 for its repair. However, the opposite party No. 2 denied this fact that complainant ever approached them for repair of his mobile set whereas the opposite party No. 1 not appeared before this Forum to clear this fact and preferred to remain exparte.
12. On the other hand to prove their case the opposite party No. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Jagjit Singh Manager Micromax Service Center, Barnala Ex.OP-2/1 in which he has reiterated the case of the opposite party No. 2 as mentioned in the written version. In this affidavit the Manager of the opposite party No. 2 specifically deposed that they provided free services to the customers of the company as per terms of warranty. He further deposed that the complainant never approached the opposite party No. 2 for repair of his mobile set. He further deposed that they have taken the mobile set for repairs by issuing a job sheet and manufacturer is informed accordingly and as per instructions of the manufacturer mobile set is repaired and bill of repair is claimed form the manufacturer. In the last para of this affidavit he deposed that the opposite party No. 2 is still ready and willing to repair the mobile set as per warranty of the mobile set. But the opposite party No. 2 never specifically denied the issuance of Ex.C-2.
13. In the present complaint the complainant is a villager having 75 years of age who cannot easily understand the complicated terms and conditions of the warranty of mobile set and it is necessary to take copy of job sheet as and when the mobile set would be given for repairs. But this Forum is of the opinion that the complainant is a senior citizen and has not filed a false complaint without any defect in his mobile. Further, the opposite party No. 1 intentionally not appeared before this Forum to clear all these facts. If the opposite party No. 1 appeared before this Forum he can easily clear that who has issued the document Ex.C-2 but to conceal all these facts he has intentionally not appeared before this Forum.
14. We again carefully perused the document Ex.C-2 and from this document one thing is crystal clear that the mobile set of the complainant has gone out of order during the warranty period and he approached the opposite party No. 1 or opposite party No. 2 to repair the same and both the opposite parties have not repaired the mobile set of the complainant only then he has filed the present complaint. In this way, the opposite parties are deficient in providing service to the complainant and it is purely an unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
16. In view of above discussion, present complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with a new one OR to refund the price of the handset and in that event the complainant is directed to return the old mobile set in question to the opposite parties. The complainant is a senior citizen having age of about 75 years and the opposite parties deprived him from using his mobile set for a long time. The opposite parties further mentally and physically harassed the complainant and also dragged him into unwanted litigation. So, opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs. 1,100/- as litigation expenses. Both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to comply with the above mentioned order of this Forum. This order shall be complied with within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
23rd Day of February 2018
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Vandna Sidhu) Member
