Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 231.
Instituted on : 02.05.2016.
Decided on : 15.07.2016.
Amit Sharma s/o Sh. Ramesh Dutt Sharma C/o Vidya School of advance studies 799/28 Bharat Colony Balaji Sweets Wali gali, Rothak now r/o Ward No.3, near Govt. Girls Sr. Sec. School, Julana Tehsil Julana Distt. Jind.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Hyson System Limited-BIJ Khasra No.631 Phirni Sadhak, Vill. Bijwasana near CISF Camp City Delhi/State Delhi-110061 Managing Director.
- Shop No.4, Red Cross Market, near Old over bridge, Customer Care of Coolpad Mobile Company, Service Centre, Hisar, through its Proprietor.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite parties already 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 Coolpad Dazen Mobile phone, 4G, item Code DB3446893 for a sum of Rs.6602/- from the opposite party no.1 through online shopping from addressee no.1 and the opposite party no.1 sent the above said mobile to the complainant at the above said address of Rohtak. It is averred that above said mobile became out of order after three months from the date of its purchase and did not give proper functioning. So the complainant got registered a complaint with the opposite party no.1 on toll free number and deposited the said mobile with the opposite party no.2 on dated 03.03.2016 then the company required job sheet from the complainant and the complainant got recorded job sheet no.JS1600200477 to the company(addressee No.1) and one month was given to the complainant but on enquiry it was found that the mobile phone of the complainant was damaged and complainant contacted opposite party no.1 and the fault was removed but IMEI Number was found changed. Then complainant contacted the opposite party no.1 & 2 for removing the fault and it was found that the touch plate was broken but the opposite party no.1 & 2 flatly refused to change the above said damaged mobile. 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 either to replace the mobile set or to repair the same and in alternate to refund the price of mobile set alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite parties through registered post. But none appeared on behalf of opposite parties and as such opposite party no.1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.06.2016 of this Forum.
3. Complainant led evidence in support of his case and has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence.
4. We have heard the complainant and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that as per invoice Ex.C1 dated 28.09.2015 the complainant had purchased the mobile set for a sum of Rs.6602/- from the opposite party no.1. It is also not disputed that the alleged handset was defective and the complainant as per his email dated 15.03.2016 Ex.C2 has deposited his mobile set with the customer care but his mobile set was not repaired. Complainant also made complaint dated 21.04.2015 Ex.C5 and has submitted that the display was also broken by the Care and requested for change/repair/replace of his mobile set and as per job sheet Ex.C6 dated 20.04.2016 the fault was repeated which was in warranty.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the mobile in question was purchased by the complainant on 28.09.2015 and the defect in the mobile set appeared during the warranty period. As per complaint, affidavit and documents placed on record, the mobile set could not be repaired/replaced by the opposite parties during the warranty period despite his repeated requests. 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 defect in the mobile set stands proved. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in 2014(1)CLT588 titled Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. & Others Hon’ble Delhi State Commission 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 is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that it is a fit case where the refund of price is justified. Mobile set in question is in the possession of complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that complainant shall hand over the set in question to the opposite party no.1 and in turn opposite party No.1 shall refund the price of mobile set i.e Rs.6602/-(Rupees six thousand six hundred and two only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 02.05.2016 till its 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 decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry further interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
8. 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:
15.07.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
