Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/369

Rajni Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

MPS Telecom Private Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Manju Watts

07 Mar 2017

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        369       

Date of Institution :   21.12.2016

Date of Decision :       7.03.2017

Rajni Sharma aged about 29 years w/o Neeraj Pal, r/o street no.3, Backside RSD College, Ferozepur, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.

.....Complainant

Versus

1. MPS Telecom Private Ltd. D-55, First & Second Floor, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-T, New Delhi-110020 through its Responsible person/ authorized person/Director.
2. Satya Telecom, Jaitu Road, Kotkapura District Faridkot through its Responsible person/ authorized person/partner.
3. TVS Electronics Ltd. 1^st Floor, Anand Plaza, Opp: Circuit House, Ludhiana through its Responsible person/ authorized person/partner.             ........OPs

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh Purshotam Singla, Member.

 

Present: Ms Manju Watts, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              OPs- Exparte.

 

(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 its cost price and for further directing OPs to pay Rs 50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.

2               Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one new HTC Desire 728G dual sim IMEI No.351879075904542 Mobile hand set for Rs.14,700/- from OP-2 vide bill dt 10.08.2016. At the time of purchase, OP-2 gave warranty for one year and also assured for free services in case of any problem. It is contended that said mobile phone started giving problems just after few days of its purchase and on 13.08.2016 it turned off again and again automatically and showed no power. Complainant brought this fact to the notice of OP-2, who handed over the said mobile phone to OP-3 for repair, but OP-2 returned the said set to complainant even without any repair and on request of complainant to repair it properly, OP-2 misbehaved with complainant and ignored her genuine request. Now, said set is showing no power. Action of OPs in not repairing the said set  amounts to deficiency in service and has caused great harassment and loss to her. She also served legal notice to OPs on 24.11.2016, but they did not bother to give any reply. This act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and has caused harassment and mental tension to complainant. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to replace the said mobile phone and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                   Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 2.01.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                   As per office report, notice containing copy of complaint alongwith relevant documents issued to OP-3 through RC AD stands served. It is clear that OP-3 had sufficient notice of complaint, but it did not come present in the Forum intentionally on date fixed and therefore, vide order dated 21.02.2017, OP-3 was proceeded against ex-parte. Notice issued to OP-1 and 2 did not received back. Statutory period expired and it is presumed that they have been duly served, but despite several calls, none appeared on their behalf on date fixed therefore, after waiting till 4.00 pm, OP-1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte on 21.02.2017.

5                       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 and documents Ex C-2 and 8 and then, closed the evidence.

6                As there is no rebuttal from OPs side, therefore, ld counsel for complainant advanced exparte arguments. We have carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant.

7                 Ld Counsel for complainant has vehementally argued that she purchased a new Mobile hand set for Rs.14,700/- from OP-2 vide bill dt 10.08.2016 and at the time of purchase, OP-2 gave warranty for one year and also assured for free services in case of any problem. It is contended that said mobile phone started giving problems just after few days of its purchase and on 13.08.2016, it turned off again and again automatically and showed no power. Complainant complained about this fact to OP-2, who handed over the said mobile phone to OP-3 for repair, but OP-2 returned the said set to complainant without any repair and on request of complainant to repair it properly, OP-2 misbehaved with complainant and ignored her genuine request. Now, said set is showing no power. Action of OPs in not repairing the said set is quite wrong. She also served legal notice to OPs on 24.11.2016, but they did not give any reply. It amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental tension to complainant. Prayer for accepting the present complaint is made.

8                  The case of complainant is that she purchased a mobile phone from OP-2 against proper bill, but said phone had some inherent defect and despite repeated requests made by complainant before OPs, OPs did not repair the same up to her satisfaction. To prove his case, complainant has placed on record copy of bill Ex C-2 and has reiterated his pleadings through her affidavit  Ex C-1. Ex C-3 is the DOA/DAP Certificate dt 13.08.2016, which proves the pleading of complainant that said phone was defective and she handed over the same to OP-2 for repairs. ExC-4 is HTC Repair Report wherein it is clearly mentioned that there is no power in said phone and it can not boot. Ex C-5 is the registered legal notice that was sent by complainant to OPs with request to repair the said mobile handset and Ex C-6 to 8 are original postal receipts showing the fact that complainant sent the said legal notice to OPs through registered post.

 9                         From the careful perusal of evidence and record placed on file, it is observed that complainant purchased the mobile in question from OPs and she is facing some problem in using the same due to some inherent defects. Ex C-2, copy of bill in the name of complainant proves that complainant is the consumer of OPs. Ex C-3 and 4 are reports showing that mobile handset of complainant was not free from defects. From the careful perusal of record, it can not be said that mobile in question was totally free from defects and it did not give any problem to its user. Complainant has adduced sufficient evidence to prove her case and Ex C-2 to 5 are cogent documents, authenticity of which can not be ignored. It is the sole responsibility of Company to supply thoroughly checked, defect free mobile phones to its customers.

10                     In the light of above discussion and keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are fully convinced with the pleadings and evidence led by complainant and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-1 and 3. OP-2 is mere a retailer and guarantee, warrantee and liability for providing safe, defect free handsets and for providing effective services lies only with OP-1 and 3. Therefore, complaint against OP-2 stands hereby dismissed. OP-1 and 3 are directed to replace the mobile phone in question with new one of same model. They are further directed to pay Rs.3000/-to complainant for harassment and mental agony and Rs2000/-for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made be made jointly and severally by OP-1 and 3 within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 7.03.2017

Member                President                                          (P Singla)            (Ajit Aggarwal)