DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC.No.189 of 11-08-2009<br /> Decided on: 12-10-2009<br /> <br /> Ananad Kumar S/o Sh. Ashok Singh, resident of 287, Banachal, Devlali Camp, Nasik, (Maharashtra).<br /> <br /> ……Complainant.<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Motorola India Private Limited, 415/2, Mahrauli Gurgaon Road, Sector 14, Gurgaon (Haryana), through its Manager.<br /> 2. M/s Bansal Mobile Care, Shop No.6, S.S.D. Sabha Market, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Prop.<br /> 3. Lalis Mobile Care, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda, through its Prop.<br /> <br /> ……Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of<br /> the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> Present:-<br /> For the complainant : Sh. Anand Kumar complainant in person.<br /> For the opposite parties : Opposite parties already exparte.<br /> <br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh. George, President.<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member.<br /> Sh. Amrajeet Paul, Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> GEORGE, PRESIDENT:-<br /> <br /> 1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as ‘Act’) with allegations against the opposite parties that he had purchased the Motorola EM 30 Cherry Mobile Set bearing IMEI No. 359612010555364 vide bill No. 2811 on dt. 25.10.2008 from opposite party No.2 for a sum of Rs. 8,100/-. Immediately after purchase of the said mobile set, it started hanging while playing MP 3 and voices of songs were changed. He immediately reported the matter to opposite party No.3 service/care center of opposite party No.1. The mechanic of opposite party No.3 checked the mobile handset and got deposited the same and he was issued the Job card on dt. 04.04.2009. Complainant was asked by opposite party No.3 that they will be sending the mobile set to High level Repair Center of company at New Delhi and the same will be returned after 15 days. He continued to visit opposite party No.3 for delivery of mobile set but on each and every occasion, the complainant returned empty handed. He was told by opposite party No.3 that mobile set had not been returned from New Delhi. Ultimately, in June 2009, opposite party No.3 handed over the mobile set to him and said that there is a serious defect in the mobile set and the same cannot be repaired as “Side key of mobile set has been broken. Housing board and n/w cable broken,” but when he deposited the said mobile set, these defects have not been pointed out by opposite party No.3 in the mobile set. These defects developed during the period when the mobile set was retained by opposite party No.3. He made several requests to opposite parties to change the mobile set but the opposite parties refused to do so. He has sought directions against opposite parties to replace the mobile set and also to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. along with litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have not come forward to contest the allegations. Opposite party No.3 filed reply wherein it has been admitted that complainant deposited his mobile set with opposite party No.3 on 04.04.2009. The mobile set was sent to High level Repair Centre at New Delhi for repair. The mobile set returned by High level Repair Centre New Delhi with remarks “Side key Broken. Housing board n/w cable broken.” Vide HLRC W/O No.02 dt. 02.06.2009. However, all the other allegations of the complainant admitted. Opposite party No.3 has pleaded that it has no role to except to send the mobile set of the complainant to High level Repair Centre at New Delhi for repairs. <br /> 3. Complainant in order to prove the allegations brought on record his own affidavit dt. 11.08.2009 Ex.C-1; photo copy of bill No.2811 dt. 25.10.2008 Ex.C-2; photo copy of service report of High level Repair Centre, New Delhi dt. 02.06.2009 Ex.C-3; photo copy of customer receipt issued by opposite party No.3 dt. 04.04.2009 Ex.C-4; copy of warranty card Ex.C-5 and also brought on record affidavit of Sh. Akash Kumar son of Sh. Dev Raj dt. 29.09.2009 Ex.C-6.<br /> 4. To controvert the allegations of the complainant, opposite party No.3 brought on the record his own affidavit dt.03.09.2009 Ex.R-1.<br /> 5. We have heard the complainant in person and also perused the entire record of the case carefully.<br /> 6. Complainant has recorded all the facts in his affidavit Ex.C-1 which he pleaded in his complaint. Affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1 and affidavit of Sh. Akash Kumar Ex.C-6 remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. It is prove on the record that complainant purchased mobile set from opposite party No.2 as per bill Ex.C-2 and it was found defective. Resultantly, the mobile set was received by opposite party No.3 in service care centre of opposite party No.1 on 04.04.2009 and opposite party No.3 prepared the job card Ex.C-4. Opposite party No.3 as per reply in his own affidavit dt. 30.09.2009 Ex.R-1 admitted that the mobile set of the complainant was received on 04.04.2009 and the same was sent to High level Repair Centre at New Delhi for repairs but it was returned by High level Repair Centre with remarks “Side key Broken. Housing board n/w cable broken.” Vide HLRC W/O No.02 dt. 2.6.2009. It is an admitted fact that at the time when opposite party No.3 received the mobile set on dt. 04.04.2009 as per job card Ex.C-4 these defects have not pointed out by the mechanic of opposite party No.3 and these defects have been developed during the period when mobile set was retained by opposite party No.3. If these defects were existing when it was handed over to opposite party No.3, there is no reason mentioning the same in job card Ex.C-4 by opposite party No.3. Mobile set was received by opposite party No.3 for repair on 04.04.2009 and it was kept unrepaired till June, 2009 rather in June, 2009, it was returned to the complainant with more defective condition. When, the mobile set was received by opposite party No.3, opposite party No.3 properly noted in Ex.C-4 only with regard to “Hangs While Playing MP3 Songs Voice Changes”, there is no mention in Ex.C-4 about “Side key Broken. Housing board n/w cable broken.” As to how, these defects developed have not been explained by any of the opposite parties. The act of opposite party No.3 kept the mobile set of the complainant unattended for more than two months and after two months, it was returned to the complainant with more defects. We are of the considered view that opposite parties have rendered them selves liable for deficiency in service and accordingly, complainant has definitely entitled for following relief:<br /> (i) To replace the defective mobile set with a new one with same warranty/guarantee or return the amount of mobile handset i.e. Rs. 8,100/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of, the mobile set went defective i.e. 04.04.2009 till the amount is finally paid to the complainant.<br /> (ii) Opposite parties shall also be liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- on account of deficiency in service and on account of mental tension, harassment and inconvenience.<br /> (iii) Opposite parties shall also be liable to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,000/-.<br /> 7. All the opposite parties shall pay the amount of this order jointly or severally to the complainant. <br /> 8. This compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> 9. The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be indexed and consigned. <br /> <br /> Pronounced (GEORGE)<br /> 12.10.2009 PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> (DR. PHULINDER PREET)<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> (AMARJEET PAUL)<br /> MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />