DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 634
Instituted on: 25.10.2016
Decided on: 10.03.2017
Bhupinder Kumar son of Shri Jagdish Rai, resident of Randhawa Patti, Longowal, District Sangrur.
…. Complainant
Versus
1. Binny Telecom, Opposite Main Post Office, Court Road, Sangrur authorized Service Centre of Lava Mobile, through its Proprietor/ partner.
2. Lava International Limited, A-56, Sector 64, Noida (UP) 201 301 through its Managing Director.
3. M/s New Geet Electronics, Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its partner/proprietor Near Shahi Smadhan.
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Shri Sanjeev Garg, Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTY No.1&2 : Shri S.K.Goyal, Advocate.
FOR OPP. PARTY NO.3 : Exparte
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Bhupinder Kumar, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that
he purchased a Lava Flair P1 mobile from OP No.3 for an amount of Rs.2800/- vide bill no.23 dated 12.12.2015 under one year warranty. From the very beginning, the mobile set in question started giving problem of auto off/ auto restart, hang and some time its display becomes black for which he approached OP no.1 who set right the same by replacing some parts but did not issue any job sheet. Thereafter on 17.05.2016 same problem arose and OP no.1 set right same again. On 26.08.2016 OP no.1 kept the mobile set for one day and returned the same on 27.08.2016 but the defect was intact. Ultimately, the OP no.1 told that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed to refund the purchase amount of the said mobile phone i.e. Rs.2800/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,
ii) OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.15000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment,
iii) OPs be directed to pay Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OP no.3 did not appear and as such OP no.3 was proceeded exparte on 06.12.2016.
3. In reply filed by OPs No. 1&2, legal objections on the grounds of maintainability, concealment of true facts, locus standi and non-joinder of necessary parties have been taken up. On merits, purchase of mobile set in question under one year warranty subject to warranty terms and conditions is admitted. It is denied that the mobile set in question had given any problem like auto restart, hang and any other problem if any such problem should have accrued then the complainant should always have the job sheet and all the allegations leveled by the complainant are wrong and concocted one as there is no job sheet with the complainant. It is wrong that the complainant ever reported the matter to OP no.1. It is wrong that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile set. It is a complete false story made by the complainant to get money from the OPs. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
4. The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1, Ex.C-2 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs No.1&2 has tendered documents Ex.OPs1&2/1, Ex.OPs1&2/2 and closed evidence.
5. From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OPs No. 1&2, we find that complainant purchased one mobile phone from OP No.3 for Rs.2800/- vide invoice no. 23 dated 12.12.2015 which is Ex.C-2 on record. The complainant has stated that from the very beginning, the mobile set in question started giving problem of auto off/ auto restart, hang and some time its display becomes black for which he approached OP no.1 who set right the same by replacing some parts but did not issue any job sheet. Thereafter on 17.05.2016 same problem arose and OP no.1 set right same again. On 26.08.2016 OP no.1 kept the mobile set for one day and returned the same on 27.08.2016 but the defect was intact. Ultimately, the OP no.1 told that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question.
6. On the other hand, OPs no.1 and 2 has stated in the reply that all the allegations leveled by the complainant are wrong and denied as there is no job sheet with the complainant. The OPs further denied that the complainant ever reported the matter to OP no.1. It is further denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the said mobile set. It is also submitted that it is a complete false story made by the complainant to get the money from the OPs. But, in support of their version the OPs have not produced any document on record which could show that there is no manufacturing defect in the said mobile set.
7. For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs no.1 and 2 to refund the price amount of the mobile set in question i.e. Rs.2800/- to the complainant after receiving the defective mobile set in question. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.3000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.
8. This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course. Announced
March 10, 2017
(Vinod Kumar Gulati) ( Sarita Garg) (Sukhpal Singh Gill) Member Member President
