Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 04.
Instituted on : 02.01.2019.
Decided on : 11.07.2019.
Pankaj age 38 years, s/o Sh. Madan Lal, resident of House no.1538/3, Mohalla Para, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Coolpad Mobile Company, through its Manager, Head Office Address of Coolpad Mobile Co.. Communications Private Limited Shop no.A1 & A2, Plot No.109, Tejas Apart, Sector-44, Nerul Seawood, New Mumbai-400706, Maharashtra, India.
- Shree Balaji Services, Cell Phone Store, No.4, Durga Medicine Market, 1st Floor, Near Chottu Ram Chowk.
- Prince Enterprises, Old Gohana Adda, Near Petrol Pump, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.M.K.Vaid, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a coolpad 4G Android mobile phone Model no.C1 Soo-Gold, 3GB, bearing IMEI No.882003032800477 on dated 17.11.2017 from opposite party No.3, which was manufactured by opposite party No.1. The respondent no.1 gave one year warranty for the said mobile through opposite party No.2. That the above said mobile phone started giving problems like battery problem, heating problem etc. just after fourteen days of the purchase. That complainant contacted the opposite party No.2 on dated 01.12.2017 vide job sheet no.JS17120100129 and the data cable was given by the opposite party and mobile was updated by them. But when he received the mobile after update, he saw that the display/screen of the mobile phone was not working properly. That the alleged problem was not removed by the opposite parties and on 06.02.2018 complainant again contacted the opposite party no.2 and also contacted opposite party No.1 on 04.04.2018 but the defect could not be removed by the opposite parties. That complainant requested the opposite parties either to replace the mobile phone or to refund the price but to no effect. 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 replace the mobile phone with new one or to refund the price of mobile alongwith interest, compensation and cost of litigation expenses as explained in relief clause to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.2 & 3 failed to appear before the Forum despite service. As such, opposite party No.2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.02.2019 of this Forum. Notice sent to opposite party No.1 through registered post not received back either served or unserved and as such opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.05.2019 of this Forum.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, document Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant had purchased the mobile in question on 17.11.2017 for a sum of Rs.10600/- as is proved from the bill Ex.C1. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, there was defect in the mobile in question from the very beginning which could not be not removed by the opposite parties despite his repeated requests. To prove his contention, he has placed on record copy of job sheet Ex.C2 dated 01.12.2017 which show that there were defects in mobile set like “Datacable, Power auto on/off and heating” which appared just within 15 days of its purchase. The contention of complainant is that thereafter complainant visited the office of opposite parties so many times but neither the defects were removed nor the job sheet was provided. The defect in the mobile appeared just within 15 days of its purchase under warranty period but the opposite parties have neither repaired the mobile nor replaced the same and also not refunded the price of mobile in question. 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 manufacturing defect in the mobile set stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and OP No.1 being manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile phone.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.1 to refund the price of Rs.10600/-(Rupees ten thousand six hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of filing of present complaint i.e.02.01.2019 till its realisation and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question at the time of making payment by the opposite party No.1.
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:
11.07.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
