DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.52 of 15
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 13-02-2015
DATE OF ORDER: 22-04-2016
Anuj Gupta son of Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, resident of Lohad Bazar, 11 Hatta Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- A.J. Distributers, Lava Mobile Service Centre, Nehru Park K Samne, Ganpat Rai Hospital K Upar, Bhiwani.
- The Manager, Lava International Limited A-64, Noida, U.P.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.
Present:- None for complainant.
Sh. R.K. Verma, Advocate for OP no. 2.
OP no. 1 exparte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that on 12.07.2014 he had purchased one hand set of Lava IRIS-406 for a sum of Rs. 6000/-. It is alleged that soon after purchase the Hand Set became defective within warranty period and complaint was lodged with the respondents but to no avail. Hence the complainant was deprived of use of the Hand Set and suffered a loss. Now the complainant has claimed the new Hand Set along with compensation and costs by way of filing present complaint.
2. OP no. 1 has failed to come present. Hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.04.2015.
3. Opposite party no. 2 on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that there is no defect in the mobile set what to speak about manufacturing defect. It is submitted that the OP no. 2 is one of the renowned company in India and alongwith other products is engaging in business of manufacturing mobiles and its sales. It is submitted that on a single time thousands of mobiles manufactured and if there is any manufacturing defect during manufacturing of the same, then the same will occur in an entire lot. It is further submitted that till date, the answering respondent were not in a receipt of a single complaint from any of its customer who are using the model mobile manufactured of the answering respondent of the same lot. It is submitted that the complainant is a habitual litigant and he also filed a complaint bearing no. 290 of 2014 decided being compromised before this Hon’ble Forum and an amount of Rs. 7500/- were paid to the complainant, now complainant with his ill motive to grab the illegal benefits again, he filed the present complaint so the complaint may kindly be dismissed on this score. It is submitted that the complainant in regards to his complaint regarding the Mobile has never approached the service centre which means unit working properly as per specification. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence Annexure C-1 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. In reply thereto, OP no. 2 has placed on record Annexure R-1 alongwith supporting affidavit.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the counsel for the OP no. 2.
7. The complainant is not appearing in this case for the last several hearings. We proceed to dispose of this complaint on merits on the basis of the material on the file.
8. The counsel for the OP no. 2 reiterated the contents of his reply. He submitted that the complainant is habitual litigant and is making false complaint. He further submitted that the complainant never approached the service centre as alleged by him. No job sheet has been produced by the complainant for the alleged defect in his mobile handset.
9. We have perused the material on record. The complainant has produced the bill dated 12.07.2014 for Rs. 6,000/- for the mobile handset in question. No other document has been produced by the complainant in support of his contention that he approached to the service centre of the mobile handset company for the rectification of the defect in his mobile handset. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 13.02.2015 within the warranty period from the date of purchase of the mobile handset in question
10. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to rectify the defects in the mobile handset of the complainant without any charge by replacing defective parts and also to pay Rs. 500/- as cost to the complainant. This order be complied with by the OPs within 30 days from the date of passing of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:.22-04-2016. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi),
Member
