BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint no. 7 of 2015
Date of Institution: 9.1.2015
Date of Decision: 11.8.2016
Davinder Singh Sandhu, Advocate, District Courts, Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
- Deol Mobiles, Shiv Chowk Circular Road, Sirsa through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager.
- Harman Distributions Shiv Chowk, Sehgal Complex, Sirsa.
- Xolo Mobile, Head Office/Xolo Smart Phone, A-56, Sector 64, Noida-201301 (UP).
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Shri Bhupinder Khattar, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite party no.1exparte.
Sh.A.S.Kalra, Advocate for Opposite parties no.2 and 3.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that on 14.8.2014 he had purchased one mobile of Xolo company Model Q900S for the sum of Rs.9500/-from Op no.1 vide bill no.1789 dt. 14.8.2014. Thereafter, within a month of its purchase, the screen of the mobile became out of order. When he approached Ops, then op no.2 asked him that the screen is not in guarantee and thus, he has to pay Rs.3052/- for replacement of screen and prepared a job sheet dt. 11.9.2014 and also asked the complainant to get the mobile after 15 days. On 25.9.2014, the complainant paid Rs.3052/- under protest to Ops and the mobile was handed over to the complainant. But, within a few days, the mobile again became out of order as ear speaker stopped to work, receiver became faulty and contacts auto deleted. The complainant visited Ops several times, but they did not pay any heed either to repair the mobile or to replace the same. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, Ops no.2 and 3 appeared and contested the case by filing reply, whereas OP1 was proceeded exparte vide order dt. 13.4.2015. It is replied by Ops no.2 and 3 that till date, there is not receipt of even a single complaint from any of its customer, who are using the same model mobile manufactured by Op no. 3 of the same lot. On the complaint of the complainant, his mobile was made Ok on the same day i.e. on 11.12.2014 and was handed over to the complainant on 12.12.2014. It is further replied that when the complainant approached the service centre, Engineer of the company told him that the unit is barred by the warranty with the remarks “Mishandling”. The company provides one year warranty and warranty means repairs not replacement and though the warranty is subject to some condition that in case the unit is 1. Liquid/water logged, 2. Serial number missing, 3. Physically damaged, 4. Mishandling and 5. Tampering, there will be no guarantee or warranty. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops no.2 and 3.
3. By way of evidence, the complainant produced his affidavit Ex. C1and photo copy of bill Ex.C2, receipt of Rs.3052/- Ex.C3, job sheets Ex.C4 and Ex.C5, legal notice Ex.C6, postal receipt Ex.C7 to Ex.C9; affidavit of Sh.Gurpreet Singh, brother of complainant Ex.C10 and affidavit of Sh.Harmander Singh, friend of complainant Ex.C11. Whereas, Ops have produced affidavit of Sh.Amardeep Singh Ex.R1.
4. We have heard ld. counsels for parties and have gone through the record carefully.
5.. Plea of the Ops that there is no complaint from any other customer who purchased the mobile set manufactured in the same lot of the company, has no force because out of thousands of mobile phones manufactured in one lot, possibility of defect in any one mobile set cannot be ruled out. On the other hand, through the job sheets dt. 11.9.2014 and 11.12.2014 and bill no.3159 dt. 25.9.2014, complainant successfully proved his allegations. Job sheet dt. 11.12.2014 clearly reflects that complaint was not satisfactory with the job of Op care centre and he clearly mentioned on the job sheet itself that mobile was handed over to him in the death condition. Sale of mobile by Op no.1 for the sum of Rs.9500/- on dt. 14.8.2014 is admitted, moreover, proved on record through Ex.C2 and Ops also denied the same. It is also proved on record that mobile set has become defective in a very short period of its purchase and default cannot be removed by the Ops. In these circumstances, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite parties, to replace the mobile hand set in question with a new one of similar description which shall be free from any defect, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ops are jointly and severally liable to comply this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:11.8.2016 Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
