Punjab

Moga

CC/15/72

sukhdev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Goyal Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

In person

30 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                      C.C. No. 72 of 2015

                                                                Instituted On: 10.09.2015

                                                  Decided On: 30.10.2015

 

Sukhdev Singh, aged about 42 years son of Jang Singh, resident of Village Bilaspur, Tehsil Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga.

Complainant 

Versus

 

1. M/s Goyal Telecom, Madhe Road, Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga, through its Prop/Partner/Manager.

2. Singla Communication, Authorized Service Centre, Railway Road, Moga.

         

Opposite Parties

 

 

 

Complaint under section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

 

Coram:      Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

                   Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member

Present:      Sh.Sukhdev Singh complainant in person.

Opposite party no.1 & 2 exparte.

 

ORDER

(Bhupinder Kaur, Member)

                  Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against M/s Goyal Telecom, Madhe Road, Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga, through its Prop/Partner/Manager and others (herein-after referred to as opposite parties)- directing them to deliver new mobile set in place of old one, which was purchased from the opposite parties or to pay a sum of Rs.8200/- the price of the said mobile hand set and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation, damages, mental tension and deficient services to the complainant or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that complainant has purchased one Samsung mobile hand set no.57582 from the opposite party no.1 on 16.10.2014 for an amount of Rs.8200/-. The opposite party no.1 has given the assurance that the mobile hand set in dispute is OK and has given the guarantee for one year. The said mobile hand set used to close after few minutes and did not give any response. The said mobile hand set was not working properly and it created great disturbance to the complainant. The complainant went to opposite party no.1 and requested it to do the needful. The complainant was advised to go to the Service centre of the company. The complainant went to the concerned service centre and the mechanic of the said service centre was tried to repair the same, but he was astonished to note that the said set was an old one. The complainant was told that the said mobile set has been used by the opposite party itself and after its use, the same has been sold and its warranty period has already been expired. The concerned service centre has refused to repair the same. The complainant was advised to approach Moga Service Centre. The complainant went to Moga Service Centre and requested them to do needful. But the concerned person of Moga Service Centre has also refused to repair the said mobile hand set. The complainant again went to the opposite parties and requested them to do needful, but the opposite parties have refused to do any thing in this regard. The services rendered by the opposite parties are deficient and complainant has been harassed unnecessarily. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, none has put appearance on behalf of opposite party nos.1 & 2, despite due service and as such, opposite party nos.1 & 2 were ordered to be proceeded exparte.

4.                In his evidence, the complainant Sukhdev Singh appeared in witness box as his own witness and filed his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of his allegations made in the complaint. The complainant also produced on record photocopies of the documents Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-3.

5.                We have heard the complainant in person and have carefully gone through record placed on file.

6.                It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased a new Samsung Mobile hand set from opposite party no.1 on 16.10.2014 for an amount of Rs.8200/- vide bill copy whereof is Ex.C2. Opposite party no.1 has given the assurance that the mobile hand set in dispute was OK and also issued warranty card copy whereof is Ex.C3. But however, the mobile hand set was not working properly and it created disturbance to the complainant. The complainant approached opposite party no.1 and requested it to do the needful. Opposite party no.1 advised the complainant to visit the service centre of the company for the purpose. The complainant went to the concerned service centre, but the mechanic of the service centre made efforts to repair the mobile hand set in dispute, but he was astonished to know that the mobile hand set in dispute was an old one. The concerned service centre refused to repair the mobile hand set in dispute on that pretext. It is the case of the complainant that both in law and equity, he is entitled for the replacement of the mobile hand set or in the alternative the opposite party may be directed to refund the price of the mobile hand set in dispute. The complainant has also prayed for compensation and damages on account of deficient service, mental tension and unnecessary harassment.

7.                In the case in hand, the complainant has not produced any record to prove that the mobile hand set in dispute was an old one. No opinion of any expert has been produced on record to prove the said fact. As per copy of the bill, the mobile hand set in dispute was sold on 16.10.2014 as a new mobile hand set. It was incumbent on the part of the complainant to have produced on record the opinion of some expert to bring home the point that the mobile hand set in dispute was an old one and it did not conform to the date of sale mentioned in the bill/cash memo. In such a situation, the complainant is not entitled to either refund of the sale price or replacement of the mobile hand set in dispute with a new one of the same quality and make. But since the complainant has been able to prove through evidence that the opposite parties have been deficient in service and the evidence has gone un-rebutted on record, therefore, the complainant is entitled to the relief of repair of the mobile hand set in dispute to his satisfaction holding opposite party nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally responsible to do the needful. It is also made clear that the complainant shall handover the mobile set in dispute at the service centre i.e. opposite party no.2 within 15 days of the receipt of the copy of this order and the opposite parties shall to do the necessary repair within a further period of 15 days so as to make the mobile hand set in dispute work worthy. Opposite parties shall not be entitled to charge any money for doing the needful repair. The complaint stands allowed exparte accordingly. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

                   (Bhupinder Kaur)                     (S.S. Panesar)

                     Member                                      President

 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:30.10.2015.