| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.210 of 16-08-2018 Decided on 13-02-2019 Gajanan Deore aged about 37 years S/o Chandrakant Deore R/o # 306, Phase-2, Model Town, Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.Shiv Shakti Telecom, Shop No.12, Fish Market, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner. 2.Unitech Service Care Centre, # 2686, First Floor Opposite Lal Path Lab, G.T. Road Near Old Bus Stand, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager. 3.Nokia India, Head Office: SP Infocity, Industrial Plot No.243, Udyog Vihar, Phase 1, Dundahera, Gurgaon, Haryana-122016, through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Smt.Manisha, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.Naveen Goyal, Advocate. Opposite party Nos.1 and 3: Ex-parte. Opposite party No.2: Sh.Sikander Verma, Proprietor in person. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Gajanan Deore (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Shiv Shakti Telecom and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one mobile handset Nokia 6 vide retail invoice dated 21.2.2018 from opposite party No.1, manufactured by opposite party No.3 with one year warranty/guarantee. At that time, the complainant was assured that it is one of the best mobile handset and in case of any defect, it will be rectified free of cost and in case, defect will not repairable, set will be replaced with new one immediately. It is alleged that after purchase of the mobile handset, the complainant started using it for his personal use.After few days, it started giving problems as sometimes, its audio function becomes poor and its loudspeaker and earpiece do not work. In the month of April 2018, the complainant approached opposite party No.1 and requested it to repair the mobile handset, he was asked to approach opposite party No.2 being authorized service centre of the company. The officials of opposite party No.2 checked the mobile handset and retained the same against job sheet dated 14.4.2018 and asked the complainant to receive the mobile handset after 2/3 days. He approached opposite party No.2, it handed over the mobile handset and assured that the mobile handset has been repaired and there will be no problem in future. It is further alleged that thereafter the complainant again started using the mobile handset. After few days, he noticed that the same problem remained there. Opposite party No.2 failed to repair the mobile handset properly. On 28.4.2018, the complainant again approached opposite party No.2, it again retained the mobile handset against issued job sheet dared 28.4.2018. After 3/4 days, complainant approached opposite party No.2, it delivered him the mobile handset and assured him that it has replaced some parts and now, the mobile handset is in O.K condition. The complainant again observed the same problems as opposite party No.2 failed to rectify the defect. On 10.6.2018, he approached opposite party No.2, it again retained the mobile handset against job sheet dated 10.6.2018. After 3/4 days, he approached opposite party No.2, it delivered him the mobile handset and assured that it has replaced some parts and that now, the mobile handset is in O.K condition, but the problems remained there. He requested opposite party No.2 either to replace the mobile handset with new one or to refund of its price as mobile handset is within guarantee/warranty period, but opposite party No.2 flatly refused to do so. He also contacted opposite party No.3 telephonically, but to no response. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. It is also alleged that due to this deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant is suffering from mental tension, agony, harassment and botheration etc. He has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- alongwith litigation expenses. He has also claimed replacement of the mobile handset with new one with fresh warranty/guarantee or refund of price of mobile handset in question i.e. Rs.14,300/- with interest @ 12% per annum. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 and 3. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them. Opposite party No.2 appeared through its Proprietor and contested the complaint by filing its written version. In the written version, opposite party No.2 has raised the legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has no cause-of-action or locus-standi to file the complaint. He has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation or litigation as he has filed false and frivolous complaint. The mix questions of intricate law and facts are involved in the complaint. They require detailed, comprehensive, elaborate oral and documentary evidence. It is not permissible under the summary proceedings before this Forum. The complaint has been filed only to injure the goodwill and reputation of opposite party No.2. There is no manufacturing defect in the mobile handset, rather there is problem in the software. This problem was cured by opposite party No.2 two times. Thereafter there was also problem in the speaker. The part of the mobile handset was not available with the service center and same was to come from the head office Bangalore. Opposite party No.2 requested the complainant that as and when the part will come from the head office, it will cure the mobile handset, but he did not wait and he took the mobile handset without putting his signature on the job sheet dated 10.6.2018. Opposite party No.2 is ready to cure the mobile handset. On merits, opposite party No.2 has controverted all the averments of the complainant and reiterated its stand as taken in the legal objections and detailed above. Parties were asked to produce the evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 31.8.2018, (Ex.C1); photocopy of bill, (Ex.C2); photocopies of job sheets, (Ex.C3 to Ex.C5) and photocopy of e-mail, (Ex.C6). To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sikander Verma dated 8.10.2018, (Ex.OP2/1) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and Proprietor of opposite party No.2 and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for complainant and Proprietor of opposite party No.2 have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. Admittedly, the complainant purchased one mobile handset from opposite party No.1, manufactured by opposite party No.3. He has placed on record job sheets dated 14.4.2018 and 28.4.2018, (Ex.C3 and Ex.C4). Vide these job sheets, problem reported was 'audio' only. No other problem was reported. The last job sheet is dated 10.6.2018. The problem reported is again 'audio' only. Opposite party No.2 has pleaded in the written version as well as affidavit that it is ready to cure the mobile handset and earlier, the complainant was not ready to leave the mobile handset for repair. There is no rebuttal to this averment of opposite party No.2 in the affidavit of the complainant also. Opposite party No.2 from the very beginning has offered to cure the problem. The complainant has prayed for replacement of the mobile handset, but there is nothing on record to prove any manufacturing defect or defect is not repairable. Of-course, opposite party No.2 requested for repair the mobile handset, but without offer any alternative mobile handset. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation against opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and dismissed qua opposite party No.1. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are directed to repair the mobile handset in question and to make it in proper working order. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 13-02-2019 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Manisha) Member
| |
