BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.423 of 2014

Date of Instt. 01.12.2014

Date of Decision :09.04.2015

Mukesh Kumar son of Harjinder Pal, Plot No.119, Tower Enclave, Phase-II, Nakodar Road, Village and Post Office Wadala, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd, Mobile House, Regd.Office Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar.

2. Lava International Ltd, A-56 Sector 64, Noida 201301, U.P.(India)

3. Lava International Ltd.

4. Bunti Xolo, Hote Preet Market, Shaheed Udam Singh Nagar, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.SP Laddi Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Aditya Jain Adv., counsel for OPs No.2 & 4.

Opposite parties No.1 and 3 exparte.

Order

Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased Xolo mobile A700 911382050056704 vide invoice No.20924 dated 24.7.2014 for a sum of Rs.7550/- from the opposite party no.1. The said mobile phone started creating problem and the complainant visited the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.1 told the complainant that service station of the aforesaid mobile is opposite party No.4 and thereafter the complainant visited the office of opposite party No.4 for the repair of the said mobile but fault was not removed. Thereafter, the complainant visited many times in the office of opposite parties No.1 & 4 but the said defect was not removed from the mobile of the complainant. The opposite party No.1 is the seller of the aforesaid mobile from whom the complainant purchased the mobile and opposite party No.2 is the importer of the aforesaid mobile, opposite party No.3 is the manufacturer of the aforesaid mobile and opposite party No.4 is the service centre who is repairing the mobile of the customer, hence all the opposite parties are liable for deficiency in service on their part and by doing so, all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the same. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace his mobile handset or to refund its price. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice opposite parties No.2 and 4 appeared and filed their written reply pleading that there is no defect in the mobile set what to speak about manufacturing defect. It is further submitted that the opposite party No.2 is one of the renowned company in India and alongwith other products is engaged in business of manufacturing mobiles and its sales. That on a single time thousands of mobiles are manufactured and if there is any alleged 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 opposite parties were not in a receipt of a single complaint from any of its customer who are using the same model mobile manufactured by the answering opposite parties of the same lot. The complainant in regards to his complaint regarding the mobile has approached the service centre with some issue in the unit at the service centre of the company on 29.8.2014 for the first and last time and the solution was provided to the complainant and after checking the unit no hardware was replaced and just to refresh the unit software was and returned the unit to the complainant on 2.9.2014. But the complaint being adamant and demanded refund to which the complainant was told that the unit of the complainant is repairable so it can not be replaced with the new one and the demand for replacement is not genuine and the same is against the company policy. It is further pleaded that company is still ready to repair the unit as per company policy. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Opposite parties No.1 and 3 did not appear inspite of notice and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.2 and 4 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP2/A and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the present parties.

7. The complainant purchased the mobile handset in question from opposite party No.1 vide retail invoice dated 24.7.2014 Ex.C1 for Rs.7550/-. The complainant has not placed on record any service job sheet or copy thereof. However, in their written reply, opposite parties No.2 and 4 have admitted that complainant approached service centre for issue in the unit on 29.8.2014 for the first time and last time and solution was provided to him and same was returned to him on 2.9.2014 but complainant being adamant demanded refund. In their written reply, they have further pleaded that company is still ready to repair the unit as per company policy. The complainant has not led any reliable evidence to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset and same is beyond repair.

8. So in the above circumstances, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties No.2 & 4 are directed to rectify the defect in the mobile handset of the complainant, if any. The complainant is directed to approach the service centre of the company for this purpose within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, the complainant is awarded Rs.1500/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

09.04.2015 Member Member President