Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/314

Harpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Jatinder Singh Khosa

27 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        314

Date of Institution :   25.10.2016

Date of Decision :     27.04.2017

Harpreet Singh aged 29 years, s/o Gurmail Singh r/o Village Chet Singh Wala Tehsil and District Faridkot.                                               

    .....Complainant

Versus

1.  M/s Royal Telecom, Shop No.75-78, Baba Farid Market, Near Kotwali, Faridkot through Proprietor.
2. Lava Care Centre, Muktsar Road, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot through Incharge.
3. Lava International Ltd A-56, Sector 64 Noida 201301 (U.P.)

......Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present:       Sh J S Khosa, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

 Sh M S Sodhi, Ld Counsel for OP-2 and 3.

 

ORDER

(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 hand set with new one or to refund its cost price and for also directing Ops to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and litigation expenses.

2                               Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 3.02.2016, complainant approached OP-1 and on his assurance, purchased a double sim mobile phone of Lava Company bearing  IMEI No. 911480801025323 and 911480801025331 from OP-1 on cash payment of Rs.4,500/-. At the time of purchase, OP-1 assured complainant that handset in question is of best quality and is cheaper than other mobiles and there will no defect in it and in case of any defect, assured to provide services free of cost and also gave guarantee of one year against any risk to phone, but since the beginning, said phone did not work properly and started creating hindrance. It used to hang and get turned on and turned off without giving any command. Complainant made complaint regarding this fact to OP-1, who kept the mobile with him for three days and then returned the same to complainant saying that he has got the said handset repaired from OP-2 and new software has been downloaded in it and there will be no problem in handset in question. But after some days of repair, the handset in question got hanged and complainant had to restart it again and sometimes it used get restarted. On this, complainant again approached OP-1 alongwith one Joginder Singh of his village and requested him to repair the handset in question. OP-1 again kept his mobile for three days and returned the same to complainant reiterating that problem of software has been removed. On 23.09.2016, said handset turned off and did not restart despite several efforts of complainant. Complainant again reported the matter to OP-1, who kept the said handset and assured to get it repaired from OP-2. On 26.09.2016, when complainant went to OP-1 to receive back his mobile phone, OP-1 told that mobile of complainant is sent to OP-2 and asked him to come after 2-3 days. On 28.09.2016, complainant again went to the shop of OP-1, but he lingered on for 2-3 days. On 1.10.2016, when complainant went to OP-1, OP-1 told complainant that his mobile is not repairable and returned the same. Complainant made several requests to OP-1 to replace the handset in question as  it was in guarantee and warrantee period, but he did not pay any heed to his requests and flatly refused to redress the grievance of complainant. Ld counsel for complainant contended that mobile in question is under guarantee and warrantee and OPs are bound to repair or replace the same. Complainant made many requests to OPs regarding mobile in question but OPs did not do the needful and all his efforts to get it repaired or replaced bore no fruit and complainant has suffered great harassment and mental tension due to this act of OPs, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and due to this complainant has prayed for seeking direction to Ops to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment  and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 7.11.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                           On receipt of the notice, OP-1 filed reply admitting that handset in question is sold by him, but denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect. It is averred that complaint filed by complainant is false, frivolous and is gross abuse of process of law. OP-1 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong concocted ones and asserted that only one year warranty for handset and 6 months warranty for battery charger was given and it too was to be provided by authorised service centre of Ops. It is averred that complainant never approached answering OP regarding any problem in his handset and he neither ever received the said handset from complainant nor got the same repaired from OP-2. It is specifically denied that complainant ever handed over his mobile handset to answering OP for getting repaired the same from OP-2. Complainant never reported any problem in her mobile handset to Ops. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too have been denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissing the complaint.

5                                           OP- 2 and 3 filed reply wherein asserted that complaint is not maintainable on the ground that it has no technical report and moreover, complainant has concealed the material facts and has not come to the Forum with clean hands and he has no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is further averred that no cause of action arises against answering Ops. It is averred that complainant approached answering OP regarding problem in his mobile handset vide call no.510007659628 and reported some problem in his handset and thereafter, engineers of Service Centre thoroughly checked the unit and resolved the issue and after that complainant never approached them regarding problem in his handset and filed the present complaint. It is further averred that company provides warranty on one year for repair and not for replacement  and this warranty is also subject to certain conditions like liquid/water logging; physically damage; serial no. missing, tampering and mishandling or burnt. Op-2 and 3 asserted that they were and are still ready to repair the handset in question as per Company Policy and even solution was provided to complainant regarding his visit at Service Centre of Company, but complainant filed the complaint with ulterior motive and is not entitled to any relief therefore, complaint in hand is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. All other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against them.

6                                    Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 8 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                            The OP-1 tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 and closed the evidence. Ld Counsel for OP-2 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Amardeep as Ex OP-2, 3/1, document Ex OP-2, 3/2 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of Op-2 and 3.

8                                     We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

 9                                      The ld Counsel for complainant argued that on 3.02.2016, complainant approached OP-1 and on his assurance, purchased a double sim mobile phone of Lava Company from OP-1 on cash payment of Rs.4,500/- and at the time of purchase, OP-1 assured that handset in question is of best quality and is cheaper than other mobiles and there will be no defect in it and in case of any defect, assured to provide services free of cost and also gave guarantee of one year against any risk to phone, but since the beginning, said phone did not work properly and started creating hindrance. It used to go in hanged position and got turned on and turned off without giving any command. Complainant made complaint regarding this fact to OP-1, who kept the mobile with him for three days and then returned the same to complainant saying that he has got the said handset repaired from OP-2 and new software has been downloaded in it and there will be no problem in handset in question, but same problem persisted again and after some days of repair, the handset in question got hanged and complainant had to restart it again and sometimes it used get restarted. Complainant again approached OP-1 alongwith one Joginder Singh of his village and requested him to repair the handset in question. OP-1 again kept his mobile for three days and returned the same to complainant reiterating that problem of software has been removed. On 23.09.2016, said handset turned off and did not restart despite several efforts of complainant. Complainant again reported the matter to OP-1, who kept the said handset and assured to get it repaired from OP-2. On 26.09.2016, when complainant went to OP-1 to receive back his mobile phone, OP-1 told that mobile of complainant is sent to OP-2 and asked him to come after 2-3 days. On 28.09.2016, complainant again went to the shop of OP-1, but he lingered on for 2-3 days. On 1.10.2016, when complainant went to OP-1, OP-1 told complainant that his mobile is not repairable and returned the same. Complainant made several requests to OP-1 to replace the handset in question as  it was in guarantee and warrantee period, but he did not pay any heed to his requests and flatly refused to redress the grievance of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint.

10                                 To controvert the allegations of complainant, OP-1 has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and averred that complaint filed by complainant is false, frivolous and is gross abuse of process of law and asserted that only one year warranty for handset and 6 months warranty for battery charger was given and it too was to be provided by authorised service centre of Ops. It is averred that complainant never approached answering OP regarding any problem in his handset and he neither ever received the said handset from complainant nor got the same repaired from OP-2. It is specifically denied that complainant ever handed over his mobile handset to answering OP for getting repaired the same from OP-2. Complainant never reported any problem in his mobile handset to Ops. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

11                         Counsel for OP- 2 and 3 argued that complaint is not maintainable against them on the ground that it has no technical report and there is no expert evidence and moreover, complainant has concealed the material facts and has not come to the Forum with clean hands and he has no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is further averred that no cause of action arises against OP-2 and 3. It is averred that complainant approached answering OP regarding problem in his mobile handset vide call no.510007659628 and reported some problem in his handset and thereafter, engineers of Service Centre thoroughly checked the unit and resolved the issue and after that complainant never approached them regarding problem in his mobile and filed the present complaint. It is further averred that company provides warranty on one year for repair and not for replacement and this warranty is also subject to certain conditions like liquid/water logging; physically damage; serial no. missing, tampering and mishandling or burnt. Op-2 and 3 asserted that they were and are still ready to repair the handset in question as per Company Policy and even solution was provided to complainant regarding his visit at Service Centre of Company, but complainant filed the complaint with ulterior motive and is not entitled to any relief therefore, complaint in hand is liable to be dismissed. There is no deficiency in service on their part. All other allegations are refuted with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

12                                     After careful observation of the record placed on file and evidence led by parties, it is observed that it is the admitted case of the parties that complainant purchased the mobile phone manufactured by OP-2 and 3 from OP-1, but it is totally refuted that there is any defect in the said mobile handset. Main contention of complainant is that since the day of purchase, mobile phone in question was giving trouble to him as it has some inherent manufacturing defect.  Complainant reported the matter to OP-1 and in turn OP-1 returned the same to complainant saying that he has got the said phone repaired from OP-2, but despite repairs, they have not removed the defect and it has been causing hindrance to his work and due to this deficiency in service, on their part, complainant has suffered great harassment and mental agony. On the other hand, OP-1 have denied all the allegations of complainant and stressed mainly on point that complainant never brought the said mobile to him for repair purpose. It is asserted that complainant never approached him or authorized service centre of Ops to get the same checked or repaired therefrom. However, Op-2 and 3 admitted before the Forum that complainant approached them regarding complaint in his unit vide his call no.510007659628 and on his complaint engineers of Service Centre thoroughly checked his unit and resolved the issue and after that complainant never approached them regarding problem in his handset and filed the present complaint. Company provides warranty on one year for repair and not for replacement  and this warranty is also subject to certain conditions like liquid/water logging; physically damage; serial no. missing, tampering and mishandling or burnt. Op-2 and 3 stressed that they were and are still ready to repair the handset in question as per Company Policy and even solution was provided to complainant regarding his visit at Service Centre of Company, but complainant filed the complaint with ulterior motive. They submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and 3.

13                              Complainant has relied upon Ex C-2, which is copy of bill dt 3.02.2016, it clearly proves the fact that complainant is the consumer of Ops and Ex C-7 is the affidavit of Joginder Singh, who accompanied him while handing over the set to OP-1 for repair and at the time of making complaints to Ops regarding defects in phone. Through his affidavit Ex C-1, he has reiterated the pleadings taken in main complaint. There is no doubt that complainant purchased the mobile in question from OP-1 and it is manufactured by OP-2 and Op-3 and this fact is also admitted by Ops. Case of the complainant is that his mobile was not working properly and was causing trouble in his work. Plea taken by OP-1 that complainant never brought the said handset to them and did not bring into their notice any complaint regarding defect in phone, seems wrong as OP-2 and 3 have admitted in their reply that complainant approached them vide his complaint no. 510007659628 and they after checking the unit in question resolved the matter. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased the mobile phone in question from Ops and there was one year warranty against any defect on it and within this period, they are liable to repair and remove all the defects from the phone. The phone in question is still under warranty and the complainant is entitled to get the same repaired from Ops free of costs. Now, the Ops cannot escape from their liability to repair the mobile phone in question. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby accepted against OP-2 and 3 and is dismissed against OP-1, who is mere a shopkeeper and he has no role to play in the repair of said mobile handset. OP-2 and OP-3 are directed to repair the mobile handset of complainant free of costs under warranty condition within one month of receipt of the copy of the order. OP-2 and 3 are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/-to complainant for harassment and mental agony suffered by him. Compliance of the order be made in prescribed time failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 27.04.2017                                

Member                     President

          (P Singla)                 (Ajit Aggarwal)