DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA

C.C. No. 55 of 14-03-2019

Decided on : 26-07-2022

Karan Soni of Sh. Rajinder Singh, resident of # 22, Model Town, Kalanwali, District Sirsa (Haryana).

.........Complainant

Versus

1. Mobile Store, Shop No. 24-25, Ground Floor, Mittal Mall, Bathinda (Punjab) through its proprietor/authorized signatory.

2. Google Mumbai, 3, North Ave, Bendra Kurla, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 (Maharashtra).

3. Service Centre: Service Factory-B2x Service Solution India Pvt. Ltd.

Add: Brahans Business Park, 403, 4^th floor, Peper Box Road No.2, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400093.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member

Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member

Present

For the complainant : Sh. Ravinder Duggal, Advocate.

For opposite parties : Sh. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 ex-parte.

Opposite party No.3 deleted.

ORDER

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President:-

1. The Complainant Karan Soni (here-in-after referred to as Complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in-after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Mobile Store and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one new Mobile set, Google Pixel 2 357537082727124, bearing model No. 80H02087-14/Pixel 2 64GB Vanta Black, IMEI No.357537082727124, Sr. No. PA7AC1A10261 from your shop (Notice No.1) for an amount of Rs. 60,100/- (including GTS etc.) on payment of cash amount, vide cash memo/invoice no. 2017-18-2769 dated 30.11.2017. The aforesaid mobile set is manufacturing by opposite party No.2.

3. It is further alleged that on purchase of this mobile set, oppsite party No.1 on his own behalf and also on behalf of opposite party no.2 has assured the complainant that in case of any defect in the working of this Mobile Set in case of any such manufacturing defect, the opposite party no.1 will give a brand new mobile set of the same company and same model, without charging any extra amount from the complainant and also provided gaurantee of two years in case of any defect in the handset and assured for the services and accordingly, being induced by the opposite parties, the complainant purchased the mobile handset. The opposite party no.3 is the authorized service centre of the opposite party no.2. The said warranty/gaurantee was given on behalf of the company of this mobile set.

4. Complainant has alleged that after few days of the puchase of the said mobile phone set, the mobile handset started creating problems as the same did not work properly and the touch panel started responding automatically and the mobile set also got hot when it was being charged and the complainant could not make proper use of his mobile set.

5. It is further stated that the complainant approached the opposite party no.1 and complained about the said problems and opposite party No.1 said to the complainant to approach opposite party No.3 being authorized service centre of opposite party No.2 and accordingly the complainant contacted the opposite party No.3 and lodged a complaint regarding above said defective mobile set and after that agent of opposite party No.2 visited the complainant house and collected the hand set for checking and repairing the same. Accordingly the service centre (Opposite party No.3) checked and repaired the mobile and after repairing sent the said mobile to the complainant again and again vide service request Nos. GL0007014 dated 06.03.2018, GL0007634 dated 17.03.2018, GL0012978 dated 01.06.2018, GL0015755 dated 30.06.2018, GL00119267 dated 03.08.2018 and service request GL0021575 dated 27.08.2018 and further No.GL0028244 dated 15.10.2018 but this product could not be repaired and thereafter complainant again sent the said defective mobile set to the service centre i.e. Opposite party No.3 and after repairing, the mobile was again sent to the complainant vide service request GL0025548 dated 04.09.2018 and delivery Note. The aforesaid mobile set is still not working properly and the defect is still continuing and the opposite party No.2 failed to repair the mobile set properly. Even one Mr.Gurpreet Singh who is employee of opposite party No.1 is misbehaved on phone with the complainant, when complainant contacted and requested him on regarding said mobile set. Thereafter the complainant again requested the opposite parties no. 2 & 3 either to repair or to replace the aforesaid mobile handset with new one or to refund of the total amount of Rs. 60,100/- as the same is within gaurantee/warranty period, opposite parties no. 2 & 3 did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant.

6. It is alleged that the complainant approached and requested the opposite parties several times in this matter but they have refused to replace the defective mobile set properly. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 16.11.2018, upon the respondents by registered post through his counsel Sh. Kamal Garg but the opposite parties did not adhere even to reply the same and the opposite parties has now totally declined to replace the defective mobile with new one and flatly refused to admit the claim of complainant, while the complainant is legally entitled to get replaced the above said mobile set or to get the refund of the sale consideration of the above said mobile set along with upto date interest from the date of its purchase till final realization of the total amount.

7. That the complainant is suffering from great mental tension, agony botheration and harrasment due to the above said arbitrary act of the opposite parties and defects in the handset and the complainant has been deprived of using the handset despite spending huge amount for purchasing the handset which is having some manufacturing defect.

8. On the backdrop of these facts, Complainant prayed for acceptance of complaint with costs and further prayed for direction to opposite parties to replace the aforesaid defective handset with the new one or in the alteranative to refund the Rs.60,100/- alongwith interest from dated 30.11.2017 @ 2% per annum, to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental as well as physical tension, to grant any other additional, consequential or alteranative relief and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

9. Name of opposite party No.3 was deleted on statement of counsel for complainant.

10. Upon notice, none appeared behalf of the opposite parties and as such ex-parte proceeding were taken against opposite parties No.1 & 2 vide order dated 30.04.2019.

11. The complainant led ex-parte evidence. In support of his version, complainant tendered into evidence his Affidavit as Ex.C-1, photocopy of Bill Ex.C-2, photocopy of Receipt as Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-7, photocopy of e-mails as Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-9, photocopy of delivery Challan as Ex.C-10 photocopy of Delivery Note Ex.C-11 to Ex.C-12, photocopy of Receipt as Ex.C-13, photocopy of Legal Notice as Ex.C-14 and Postal Receipts as Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-17

12. We have heard the learn counsel for complainant and gone through the evidence produced by complainant.

13. In nutshell the case of the complainant that he purchased new mobile Google Pixel 2 from opposite party No.1 vide invoice dated 30.11.2017 (Ex.C-1). Opposite party No.2 is manufacturer. Opposite party No.3 was service centre whose name was got deleted by complainant. After few days of purchase the mobile set started creating problems. Touch panel of mobile started responding automatically and mobile set got hot on being charged. The mobile set of the complainant could not be repaired by opposite parties despite various service requests (Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-11). Complainant got issued legal notice on 16.11.2018 (Ex.C-14) to opposite parties vide postal receipts (Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-17).

14. We have perused the documents proved by complainant and found that complainant purchased the said mobile on 30.11.2017 by making payment of Rs.60,100/-. Further perusal of document Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-13 reveals that mobile phone of complainant was sent to opposite parties for repair time and again and as per these documents it was returned to complainant after repair. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties failed to repair the mobile phone and the defect is still in mobile there. Complainant proved on file that he got served legal notice Ex.C-14 upon opposite parties vide postal receipts Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-17 but opposite parties neither repaired the mobile phone nor replaced the same with new one or refunded the amount.

15. Keeping in view the evidence led by complainant and decision on Hon'ble National Commission In the case titled as Rakesh Anand and other versus Royal Empires (Royal Minar) cited in 2018 (2) CPJ 290, this Commission is of the considered opinion that non-appearance and non-filing of reply by the opposite parties make the position crystal clear that opposite parties have nothing to say and contest the present complaint. This Commission is of the considered view that complainant proved his case by leading sufficient evidence and due to non-appearance of opposite parties to contest the case this Commission is left with no option but to accept the unrebutted evidence of complainant.

16. Complainant proved on file that the opposite parties failed to repair the mobile set despite various attempts and in case of failure to repair the mobile set opposite parties should have replaced the same with new one or refunded the sale price of said mobile to complainant. But opposite parties did nothing and left the complainant in lurch. Thus there is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.

17. In view of what has been discussed above this complaint is partly allowed with Rs.10,000/- as cost as compensation. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are further directed to replace the mobile with new one of same model and description or to refund the amount of Rs.60,100/- to complainant along with interest @ 8% P.A. from date of institution of complaint i.e. 14.03.2019 till realization.

18. Compliance of this order be made within 45 days of receipt of the copy of the order.

19. The complainant could not be decided within statutory period due to Covid pandemic and heavy pendency of cases.

20. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced :

26-07-2022

(Kanwar Sandeep Singh)

President

(Shivdev Singh)

Member

(Paramjeet Kaur)

Member