Haryana

Karnal

CC/378/2022

Vinod Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Blue Star Sales - Opp.Party(s)

Raj Kumar Solanki

28 Oct 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.378 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt 06.07.2022

                                                        Date of Decision: 28.10.2024

 

Vinod Kumar son of Rati Ram, resident of village Kairwali, District Karnal.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.  Blue Star Sales, Shop no.300/6, old Char Chaman, Karnal through its proprietor/partner.
2. Oppo corporate office 8B, Delhi-Jaipur Expy. DLF Cyber city, DLF phase 2, Sector 2A, Gurugram through its Managing Director.

 

…..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

              Ms. Neeru Agarwal…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

Argued by:  Shri Narinder Jattu, counsel for the complainant.

                    OPs  exparte (vide order dated 23.11.2023).

                   

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that the complainant purchased one oppo Mobile A74 5G bearing IMEI no.868896050617036 worth Rs.17,000/-, vide bill no.128 dated 05.07.2021 from the OP no.1, which is manufactured by OP no.2. The said mobile carried one year warranty from the date of purchase. On the next day of purchase, the said mobile set started giving trouble as it used to get hanged and its audibility was not clear. The complainant approached the OP no.1 and informed him regarding the abovesaid problems and the OP no.1 sent the complainant to the service center of the OP no.2 and officials of center of OP no.2 after keeping the mobile of the complainant for few hours, gave the same to the complainant by saying that now it is OK in all respects and in future it would not develop the abovesaid problems for the complainant. However, even after the repair, the problems continued in the said mobile and the complainant suffered great inconvenience. Complainant again approached the service centre of OP no.2 and told them about the abovesaid problems and this time the officials of service center of the OP no.2 kept the abovesaid mobile of the complainant and told that there is some manufacturing defect in the mobile, however, they will try to rectify the same, but the complainant when approached the service centre, then their official told that the said mobile is beyond repair as it is having manufacturing defect and the same cannot be rectified. OPs have sold the defective mobile, having manufacturing defect to the complainant and despite repairs, the defect could not removed. Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs to refund the cost of the mobile set as it is beyond repair but OPs refused to refund the cost of the mobile. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to refund the cost of the mobile set i.e. Rs.17,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum,  to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment as well as financial loss and to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.

2.             On notice, OPs did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 23.11.2023 of the Commission.

3.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, copy of bill/cash memo dated 05.07.2021 Ex.C2, copies of job cards dated 11.05.2022, 13.05.2022 and 13.05.2022 Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on 05.08.2024 by suffering separate statement.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant  gone through the case file carefully.

 5.            Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased the mobile set in question from the OP no.1 with the warranty of one year. On the next day of its purchase, the said mobile set starting giving problem. Complainant approached the OPs for rectification of the defect but despite of their best efforts the defect could not be rectified. Then complainant requested the OPs either to refund the cost of the mobile set or to replace with new one but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

6.             The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant. To prove his case, complainant has placed on file copy of bill/cash memo dated 05.07.2021 Ex.C2, copy of job cards Ex.C3 dated 11.05.2022, Ex.C4 dated 13.05.2022 and Ex.C5 dated 13.05.2022. In the job card Ex.C5, it is clearly mentioned that in Incoming calls sometime no sound from receiver and automatically off it will on when press power key (handset taken for Q.A.). Thus, it has been proved on record that mobile set in question is having manufacturing defect, which occurs during the warranty period.

7.              To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant, OPs did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Thus, the evidence produced by the complainant is unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. It was the duty of the OPs to repair the mobile set in question within the warranty period, and if it was not repairable then to refund the cost of the mobile set, but the OPs did not do so. Thus, the case of the complainant is well proved. Hence, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has used the mobile set more than 10 months. Hence, complainant is not entitled for the compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

8.             Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund the cost of the mobile set i.e.17000/- to the complainant. The complainant is also directed to handover the old mobile set in question to the OPs. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:28.10.2024

         President,

      District Consumer Disputes                           

      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                   ( Neeru Agarwal)            (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                           Member                        Member