Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 94.
Instituted on : 19.02.2015.
Decided on : 11.05.2015.
Arvind Batra s/o Ramesh Batra, R/o 1605/21, Near Shiva General Store, Adarsh Nagar, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- DASHMESH KHALSA MOBILE Authorized Distributor, Gohana Road, Rohtak, service be effected through its Proprietor.
- M/s Pefect Solution, Authorized Service Centre, E-3, Lower Ground Floor, Kalkaji, New Delhi, Pin Code-110019, Service be effected through its Incharge.
- Managing Director, Micromax House, 90-B, SEC-18, Gurgaon.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Shailender Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a mobile set of Micromax company having model no.Canvas I A116 amounting to Rs.12200/- from the opposite party no.1 on dated 01.01.2014 vide bill no.16628 who is authorized distributor of Micromax company. It is averred that opposite party no.2 is authorized service centre of opposite party no.1 & 3. It is averred that there was a warranty of one year on the alleged handset but the alleged smart phone reboot at every 5 minutes and flash light of this phone was not working since the date of purchase. Complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the defected handset and on the request of opposite party no.1 went to the opposite party no.2 at Delhi and handed over the defected set and the job card No.(n031818-1114-13296689) was issued . It is averred that till date the handset is lying with the opposite party no.2 since 11.11.14 being service centre of opposite party no1 & 3 and no heed of genuine request is being heard by the opposite party no.1 & 2. It is averred that on the message of opposite party no.3 complainant again visited the service centre at Delhi to collect the set but the service centre showed ignorance about this set. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the amount of handset of Rs.12200/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite parties. But none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties despite service and as such opposite parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.04.2015 of this Forum.
3. Complainant led evidence in support of his case.
4. Complainant in his evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard ld. Counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that the complainant had purchased the mobile set for a sum of Rs.12200/- on 01.01.2014 from the opposite party no.1 as is proved from bill Ex.C1. It is also not disputed that as per job sheet Ex.C2 & Ex.C3 dated 11.11.2014 the defects such as “Locks up, not responding 4706 Mechanics flashlight” appeared in the handset during warranty period. It is also not disputed that as per copy of emails Ex.C4 to Ex.C6 the opposite party company informed the complainant that his set is repaired and to collect the same”. The contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant is that when the complainant visited the service centre at Delhi i.e. opposite party no.2 to collect the handset the service centre showed its ignorance about the handset and the handset in question is still in the possession of opposite party no.2. It is further contended that the complainant had to borne expenses on account of his 4 visits to the service centre of company at Delhi and the opposite parties are liable to pay the same.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that defects in the mobile set appeared within warranty period and the handset in question was neither repaired nor replaced by the company despite giving assurances. The set in question is still in the possession of the opposite party no.2 i.e. Service Centre. It is also observed that opposite parties had not appeared to rebut the version taken by the complainant in his complaint and were proceeded against exparte and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter. Therefore all the versions put forth by the complainant regarding manufacturing defect in the alleged mobile set stands proved. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law cited in 1(2007) CPJ 120 titled Head Marketing and Communication Vs. Ankush Kapoor & Ors. whereby Hon’ble U.T. Commission, Chandigarh has held that: “Handset giving problems from day one/Defects could not be rectified inspite of being repaired twice-Undoubtedly, it suffered from inherent defects- Deficiency in service proved- Forum rightly ordered refund of cost of handset with interest”, as per 2008(1)CPC 52 titled Sony Ericsson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal, Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Mobile purchased from OP had problem in key pad-New hand set after replacement also found to be faulty-State Commission directed refund of the money while OP insisted to offer replacement by new hand set-Refund of amount is justified as deficiency in service is writ large-Order upheld” and as per 2014(1)CLT588 titled Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. & Others Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, Mumbai has held that: “In the event when a product is found to be defective at the very beginning it is always better to order for the refund of the amount because replacement of the product will never satisfied the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product-if the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and if develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous”. In view of the aforesaid law, which are fully applicable on the facts & circumstances of the case, the complainant is entitled for refund of price of mobile set. The handset in question is already with the opposite party no.2.
8. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions, it is directed that the opposite party no.3 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.12200/-(Rupees twelve thousand two hundred only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 19.02.2015 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of order. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs and shall also sent to the opposite parties through regd. post.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
11.05.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
