Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 258.
Instituted on : 11.05.2016.
Decided on : 04.07.2017.
Narender s/o Sh. Hawa Singh R/o Village-Sanghi, Teh. & Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Anmol Communication, Shop No.1-2-3-4 Gopal Complex, Civil Road, Rohtak through its Proprietor.
- M/s Mobile Solution, Civil hospital Road, Opp. Godara Medical Hall, 1st Floor, Rohtak through its Proprietor.
- Intex Technologies(P) Ltd., D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020 through its Managing Director.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.B.S.Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a Mobile phone bearing IMEI No.911472600404361 from the opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.10100/- vide bill No.59707 dated 06.04.2016. It is averred that just after few days of purchase of mobile it started creating problem and the said mobile is not working properly. It is averred that complainant contacted the opposite party no.1 on 18.04.2016 and deposited his mobile vide job sheet no.604186497016 and the mobile set was got repaired by opposite party no.2 but just after few days it again started creating problem and phone was again repaired on 22.04.2016. It is averred that the phone is having heating and network drop problem so the complainant deposited the mobile to opposite party No.2 on dated 02.05.2016 but the same has not been properly repaired and after that he submitted his mobile at company and received job sheet dated 09.05.2016. It is averred that the mobile set in question had become defective only within one month so the opposite parties are liable to replace the mobile set or to refund the price thereof. It is averred that complainant requested the opposite parties to return the cost of mobile set but to no effect. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of mobile set alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party no.1 & 2 received back duly served but none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1 & 2 and as such opposite party no.1 & 2 vide order dated 29.06.2016 and opposite party no.3 vide order dated 08.02.2016 of this Forum were proceeded against exparte.
3. Complainant led evidence in support of his case.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that as per bill Ex.C1 dated 06.04.2016 the complainant had purchased the mobile set for a sum of Rs.10100/-. The contention of ld. counsel for the complainant is that the handset in question was defective from the very beginning and the same could not be repaired by the opposite parties despite his repeated requests during the warranty period. To prove his case complainant has placed on record copy of job sheets Ex.C2 to Ex.C3. As per job sheet Ex.C2 dated 02.05.2016, there was problem of handset heating/battery heating, insert sim etc. and as per job sheet Ex.C3 dated 09.05.2016 the problem is about network. After that the mobile set in question is in the possession of opposite party and the same could not be repaired by the opposite parties.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the mobile in question was purchased by the complainant on 06.04.2016 and the defect in the mobile set appeared on 02.05.2016 i.e. just within one month of its purchase. As per complaint, affidavit and documents placed on record, the mobile set could not be repaired by the opposite parties despite repeated complaints by the complainant during the warranty period. It is also on record that opposite parties did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding defect in the mobile set stands proved. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in III(2008)CPJ 98 titled Pahnawa Boutique & Anr. Vs. Shaifi Verma Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Complaint fully supported by affidavit-No basis to reject complainant’s version-O.P.failed to contest proceedings despite notice-Order of Forum allowing the ex-parte complaint upheld”, as per 1998(3)CCC 65(P & H) Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sardari Lal Vs. Kartar Singh & Ors. has held that: Non-appearance of a party as a witness in the suit-Gives rise to a strong presumption against him”. We have also placed reliance upon the law cited in 2014(1)CLT588 titled Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. & Others Hon’ble Delhi State Commission has held that: “In the event when a product is found to be defective at the very beginning it is always better to order for the refund of the amount because replacement of the product will never satisfied the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product-if the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and if develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous”, as per II (2009) CPJ 240 titled as Jagdish Prasad Khandelwal vs. Partap Chandra Behera & Ors., Hon’ble Orissa State Commission, Cuttak has held that: “Dealer-Liability-Manufacturing defect-dealer requested manufacturer to replace effective goods having sufficient discharged his responsibility, dealer, cannot be made liable for deficiency in service order against dealer set aside in appeal-manufacturer alone held liable to replace defective goods or to refund price thereof”
8. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that opposite party no.3 i.e. manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set to the complainant. As per the statement made on30.05.2017 the mobile set in question is already in the possession of service centre. As such, it is directed that the opposite party no.3 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.10100/-(Rupees ten thousand one hundred only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.11.05.2016 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
04.07.2017.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
……………………………..
Komal Khanna, Member
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
