Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 166.
Instituted on : 17.03.2016.
Decided on : 25.07.2016.
Pardeep s/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan R/o Village Assan Tehsil & District Rohtak owner of the mobile handset maker Gionee Elife S5.1 EMI No.862704028059479.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s U.T.Electronics, Anant Vivakanand Road, Zirakpur Punjab.
- Gionee Service Centre, Radhe Radhe Communication Rohtak, Narain Complex, Chotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak(Haryana).
- Anmol Communication B.O., Shop No.1,2,3,4 Gopal Complex, Civil Road, Rohtak-124001.
……….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.S.P.Dhankhar Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties already 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 Gionee S5.1 Black for a sum of Rs.18000/- from the authorized dealer of opposite party no.1 i.e. opposite party no.3 on 04.02.2015. It is averred that opposite party no.1 is manufacturer, opposite party no.2 is authorized service center and opposite party no.3 is authorizer dealer of O.P.No.1 who had given one year guarantee of the said mobile set to the complainant. It is averred that above said mobile started giving problems after some time and complainant’s cousin take his mobile to the opposite party no.2 who deposited the mobile set on 21.01.2016 i.e. within warranty period. Opposite party no.2 informed him that the mobile set would be sent to opposite party no.1 for its repair. It is averred that opposite party no.2 told the complainant that the problem of repeatedly hanged out will be solved by the company on payment of Rs.5400/- by the complainant. But the complainant refused to pay the same as the mobile was within warranty period. It is averred that during the repair, the display of the mobile set was broken by the opposite party no.1 and opposite parties did not repair the mobile set of the complainant despite his repeated requests. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed either to repair the mobile phone or 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. But none appeared on behalf of opposite parties no. 2 & 3 despite service and as such opposite party no.2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.05.2016 of this Forum. Opposite party no.1 also did not appear despite notice through registered post and opposite party no.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.06.2016 of this forum.
3. Complainant led evidence in support of his case and has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and has closed his evidence.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that as per invoice Ex.C1 dated 04.02.2015 the complainant had purchased the mobile set for a sum of Rs.18000/- from the opposite party no.1. It is also not disputed that the alleged handset was defective and as per job sheet Ex.C2 dated 21.01.2016 there was problem of “touchpad automatic working & display yellow colour show h/set hang, TP easy wrong touch, LCD change colour waves on LCD” and the mobile set was within warranty period.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the mobile in question was purchased by the complainant on 04.02.2015 and the defect in the mobile set appeared during the warranty period. As per complaint, affidavit and documents placed on record, the mobile set could not be repaired/replaced by the opposite parties during the warranty period despite repeated requests of the complainant. 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 whereby 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 exparte 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” and as per 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”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that it is a fit case where the refund of price is justified. Mobile set in question is in the possession of opposite party no.2 i.e. service centre.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that opposite party No.1 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set i.e Rs.18000/-(Rupees eighteen thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 17.03.2016 till its 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 further interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
8. 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:
25.07.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
……………………………..
Komal Khanna, Member
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.