Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 207.
Instituted on : 10.05.2018.
Decided on : 10.06.2019.
Ranbir Singh age 38 years s/o Sh. Mehtab Singh R/o Village Samchana, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Deshmesh Mobile (dealer of LAVA Mobiles) opposite Malik Medicos, Gohana Road, Rohtak, through its M.D./Manager/Authorized person.
- LAVA international Ltd.(manufacturer)A-56, Sector-64, Noida-201301 Utter Pardesh, India through its M.D./Manager/Authorized person.
- Shri Hari Computer Solutions,(service Center) SCO-189 HUDA Complex, Rohtak through its M.D./Manager/Authorized person.
……….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.Anand Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Kunal Juneja, Advocate for opposite party No.2.
Opposite party No.1 & 3 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a mobile phone of LAVA, A9749 for a sum of Rs.5800/- from the opposite party no.1. That within few days of its purchase, the said mobile phone started giving problems like: battery backup was much less, manufacturing defect in speaker & touch screen and there was also hanging problem in the alleged mobile set. That on 09.07.2017, complainant gave his mobile phone to respondent no.3 for repair but the complainant was not satisfied with the service and as such he again visited the opposite party No.3 on 18.12.2017 with same issues but again no satisfactory service was provided to the complainant.. That the act of opposite parties of selling the defective product is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the cost of mobile set Rs.5800/- alongwith interest, compensation and cost of litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 & 3 did not appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 04.07.2018 of this Forum. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that that complainant in regards to his complaint has approached the service center on 18.12.2017 and reported Touch Screen Damage Problem in the unit. The Engineer of the company thoroughly checked the unit in the presence of complainant and found that the screen of the unit was damaged due to mishandling on the part of complainant. As such the unit was barred by warranty and as per terms & conditions of the warranty, the repair of the unit was on chargeable basis. But the complainant started demanding replacement/refund of his unit. After that complainant without any cause of action, directly filed the present complaint. That OPs are still ready to repair the phone as per warranty so there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, document Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 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 01.06.2017 for Rs.5800/-. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, there was defect in the mobile set which could not be removed by the opposite parties within warranty period. As per job sheet Ex.C3 to Ex.C4 there was “touch screen problem” in the alleged mobile set which appeared on 18.12.2017 i.e. after 6 months of its purchase, but the defect could not be removed by the opposite parties within warranty period which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite party No.2 being manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set to the complainant after deduction of 15% depreciation on it as the complainant has used the mobile set for 6 months.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.2 to refund the price of mobile set(Rs.5800/-) after deduction of 15% depreciation i.e. to pay Rs.4930/-(Rupees four thousand nine hundred and thirty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 10.05.2018 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) as litigation expenses and Rs.1000/-(Rupees one 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 parties at the time of making payment by opposite party No.2.
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:
10.06.2019.
…………………………..
Nagender Singh Kadian,
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
