Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 637

                                                          Instituted on     : 25.11.2016.

                                                          Decided on       : 29.10.2018.

Shiva Bhardwaj @ Apoorv Bhardwaj age 23 years s/o Sh. R.K.Bhardwaj R/o Brahamana Mohalla, Sampla. (Mob No.98960-66248).

                                                                    ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

1. Manager Cloutdail India Pvt. Ltd. Anjaneya Infrastructure Project No.38 & 39 Soukya Road Kacherakanahalli Hoskote Taluka Bangalore Rural Distt. Nangalore-560067-Karnataka, India.
2. Manager/Office In-charge service Center HUDA Complex Rohtak.
3. Coolpad Communications Pvt.Ltd., Shop No.A1 & A2, Plot No.109, Tejas Apart Sec. 44, Nerul Seawood. N. Bombay. 

……….Opposite parties.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

                   SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh.R.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.Amit Soni, Advocate for OP No.1.

                   Opposite party No.2  & 3 exparte.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased  a mobile phone of Coolpad note-3 on dated 27.11.2015 online for a sum of Rs.8999/-. That on 06.07.2016 the screen of the handset become dark and complainant contacted the service centre and they told that there is some display problem and they will remove the fault after contacting the company. But despite repeated visits of the complainant to the service centre, no action was taken by the OPs and they refused to repair the set of complainant. 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 value of mobile set i.e. Rs.8999/- alongwith interest, compensation and cost of litigation as explained in relief clause.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that answering opposite party is only a reseller of the product on the website. Any warranty offered and or provided on the product is the sole responsibility of the manufacturer to the total exclusion of the answering opposite party.  That the opposite party has been wrongly arrayed as party to the present complaint without any cause of action. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.  However opposite party No.2 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.01.2017 of this Forum. Opposite party no.3 also did not appear despite service through speed post and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.10.2018 of this Forum.

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A, document Ex.C1 and closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.R1 and closed his evidence.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties we have observed that the complainant had purchased the handset on 27.11.2015 and as per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the defect in the screen of the mobile appeared on 06.07.2016 i.e. within warranty period which could not be removed by the opposite partied despite his repeated requests.  On the other hand contention of ld. counsel for opposite party No.1 is that OP No.1 is only a reseller of the product on the website and the sole responsibility regarding the product is of the manufacturer. Opposite party No.2 & 3 i.e. manufacturer and service centre 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 party No.2 & 3 regarding defect in the mobile set stands proved.  Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and they are liable to refund the price of mobile set.

6.                          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.3 being manufacturer, to refund the price of mobile set i.e. to pay Rs.8999/- (Rupees eight thousand nine hundred ninety nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 25.11.2016 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.  However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite party no.2 or 3 at the time of making payment by the opposite party No.3. 

7.                         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:

29.10.2018.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Ved Pal Hooda, Member.

                                                                        …………………………..

                                                                        Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.