State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jatinder Kumar vs M/S Mobile Zone on 12 June, 2017
Daily Order 2nd Additional Bench STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH. First Appeal No.192 of 2017 Date of institution:17.03.2017 Date of Decision : 12.06.2017 Jatinder Kumar son of Salig Ram resident of H. No.1180, Street No.9, Guru Arjun Dev Nagar, Near Samrala Chowk, Ludhiana presently working as Assistant Manager at United Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office G.T. Road Khanna. Appellant/complainant Versus M/s Mobile Zone (PB), Gill Road, Ludhiana, (Authorized Service Centre of Micromax Mobile) through its authorized signatory. Micromax Infomatics Ltd., 21/14A, Phase-II, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi-110028. ......Respondents/opposite parties First Appeal against order dated 16.12.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana. Before:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President Mr. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Judicial Member. Present:- For the appellant : Sh.Gitish Bhardwaj, Advocate For the respondent : Ex-parte Gurcharan Singh Saran, Judicial Member
ORDER This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as appellant) against the impugned order dated 16.12.2016 passed in CC No.614 of 23.08.2016 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana, (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed ex-parte with a directions to OP No.1 to return duly repaired mobile set to the complainant within 30 days after receipt of Rs.650/- as cost price of the repair from the complainant. Complainant will offer Rs.650/- to OP No.1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and OP No.1 after receipt of Rs.650/- from the complainant will return the duly repaired mobile set to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said amount.
2. Consumer complaint was filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) against OPs on the averments that he purchased a Micromax Canvass mobile phone in the year 2013. In the last week of June 2016, the mobile phone of the complainant started giving problem regarding power on-off. After checking, OP No.1 told the complainant that some of the parts of the mobile phone are damaged due to which his mobile phone is giving problem. These parts were required to be replaced, it will cost Rs.650/-. Complainant showed his willingness to pay Rs.650/- to the OP No.1. Complainant left the mobile phone with OP No.1 and OP No.1 issued a job card/sheet regarding receipt of the mobile phone for repair. Complainant visited OP No.1 after three days, but OP No.1 told that his mobile phone is still to be repaired and it will take another two or three days. He again visited OP No.1 number of times, but OP No.1 failed to deliver the repaired mobile phone to the complainant. Complainant also sent emails to Id Micromax [email protected]. Complainant also sent a registered legal notice through his counsel Sh. Lalit Gupta, Advocate District Fatehgarh Sahib to the OP, but with no result. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, complaint was filed before the District Forum seeking direction against OP No.1 to direct him to handover the duly repaired mobile phone to the complainant without any charges, compensation for mental harassment of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.
3. Notice was issued only against OP No.1, but OP No.1 was proceeded ex-parte before the District Forum.
4. Before the District Forum, the complainant tendered its evidence.
5. After going through the averments of the complaint, evidence, and documents on the record the complaint of the complainant was allowed as referred above.
6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
7. We have heard the counsel for the appellant/complainant who argued that no compensation has been allowed for harassment or litigation expenses. We have gone through the order passed by the District Forum, the mobile phone of the complainant was out of warranty and when the mobile phone was given to OP No.1, it was stated that it require some repair/replacement and it will cost Rs.650/- and the jobcard Ex.C-1 was prepared. After that only a legal notice has been given and there is no evidence of tendering the cost to the OP No.1. OP No.1 will repair it if the complainant tendered the repair cost to OP No.1. Already directions have been given by the District Forum to OP No.1 to return duly repaired mobile set to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order on receipt of payment of Rs.650/- as cost price of the repair from the complainant. The order seems to be quite justified. We do not see any scope for any enhancement because it is just a case of repair of the mobile phone out of warranty period.
8. Counsel for the appellant was unable to make any point for admission of the appeal. The same is hereby dismissed in limine.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER June 12, 2017.
PK/-