BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR.

                                                                   C.C. No. 303 of 2015                                                                                                    Date of Institution: 14.7.2015          

                                                                   Date of Decision:  28.10.2015

Baljeet Singh aged 32 years son of Shri Tehal Singh resident of Village Rahime Ke Uttar, Tehsil and District Ferozepur (Ph. No.88721-32233)

     ....... Complainant

 Versus                         

1.       Kandhari Teleworld, Muktsar Road, Fuhara Chowk, Guruhar Sahai, Tehsil Guruhar Sahai, District Ferozepur through its Proprietor.

2.     Gaurav Telecom, Chowk Aggersain, Near Amartex, Mall Road, Ferozepur City-152002 through its Proprietor.

3.      U.T. Electronics Pvt. Limited, Registered Office, SCO 363-64, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh-160022 through its authorized signatory.

           ........ Opposite parties

                               Complaint   under  Section   12  of

                                                                             the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

                                                                             *        *        *        *        *       *

C. C. No. 303 of 2015                       //2//

PRESENT :

For the complainant                :         Sh S.S.Sidhu, Advocate                     

For opposite party        No.1          :         None

For opposite party Nos. 2 & 3         :         Exparte

QUORUM

S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President

Mrs. Inderjeet Kaur, Member 

ORDER

GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-

                             Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant purchased one mobile set model Gionee S 5.1, Black Colour, bearing IMEI No.862704028131526 for a consideration of Rs.18,500/- vide Invoice No.1313 dated 21.03.2015 from opposite party No.1. After some time, the mobile set in question became defective i.e. back touch key not working, display blinking and TP easy wrong touch. In this regard, the complainant approached opposite party No.2 and requested it to rectify the defects in the mobile set in question. Opposite party No.2 after rectifying the

C. C. No. 303 of 2015                       //3//

defects returned the mobile set in question to the complainant. It has been pleaded that on 28.4.2014 & 05.05.2015, the mobile set in question become again defective, the complainant approached opposite party No.2, who after rectifying the defects returned the same. Further it has been pleaded that on 10.07.2015 the mobile set in question again occurred problem i.e. TP automatic working, TP easy wrong touch and also became dead.  The complainant approached the opposite parties and requested to refund the price of the mobile set in question as the opposite parties sold the defective mobile set in question to the complainant. But the opposite parties put off the matter on one pretext or the other and have failed to rectify the defects in the mobile set in question. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund the price of the mobile set in question i.e. Rs.18,500/- alongwith interest, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Upon notice, opposite party No.1 has appeared through its representative namely Sh. Harsh Kumar, but he did not file any written reply on its behalf after availing sufficient opportunities. Opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 were also proceeded against exparte vide order date 20.08.2015.

C. C. No. 303 of 2015                       //4//

3.                The learned counsel for the complainant has closed evidence on behalf of the complainant by tendering into evidence Ex. C-1 to Ex.C-6  On the other hand, opposite party No.1 has failed to lead any evidence as such the evidence of opposite party No.1 was closed by order vide order dated 01.10.2015.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record.

5.                Purchase of the mobile set model Gionee S 5.1, dated 21.3.2015 for the consideration of Rs.18,500/- is proved from the copy of bill Ex. C-1. The grievances of the complainant is that the opposite party sold the defective mobile set in question to the complainant and they failed to put in proper working condition despite repeated repairs. After purchase of mobile set in question it created problem as back touch key not working, some time display blinking and TP easy wrong touch. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 and requested him to rectify the defects in the mobile in question. Opposite party No.2 kept the mobile set at that time and later on returned back to the complainant after about seven days by saying that it has been repaired and now it is OK. A job sheet Ex. C-2 has also been handed over by opposite party No.2 to the complainant. The version of the complainant is that thereafter on 28.4.2015, the mobile set again

C. C. No. 303 of 2015                       //5//

gave problem i.e. display blinking some time back scroll not work, LDC blurred screen/LCD random screen and on this, again the complainant approached opposite party No.2 and made a complaint and opposite party No.2 kept the mobile set at that time and later on returned back to the complainant after about seven days by saying that it has been repaired and now it is OK. A job sheet Ex. C-3 has also been handed over by opposite party No.2 to the complainant. The complainant pleaded in the complaint that on 5.5.2015, the mobile set again gave problem i.e. camera problem, cannot take picture and the complainant again approached opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 kept the mobile set at that time and later on returned back to the complainant after about 14 days by saying that it has been repaired and now it is OK. A job sheet Ex. C-4 has also been handed over by opposite party No.2 to the complainant. The complainant also pleaded in the complaint that on 10.7.2015, the mobile set again gave problem i.e. TP automatic working, TP easy wrong touch and the complainant again approached opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 kept the mobile set, the mobile set in question became dead at the hands of opposite party No.2, while its checking. Since then, the mobile set is lying with opposite party No.2 and it has not been repaired. The version of the complainant is duly proved on the job sheet Ex. C-5. The complainant approached the opposite parties 4-5 times after 10.7.2015 and

C. C. No. 303 of 2015                       //6//

requested them to refund the price amount of Rs.18,500/- of mobile set in question but they have been putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. The version of the complainant is fully supported by duly sworn affidavit. The version of the complainant is unrebutted. Occurring of one and the same defect time and again despite repeated repairs itself leads to the conclusion that there is some manufacturing defect in the mobile hand set in question, as a result of which the opposite parties have failed to rectify its defect despite repeated repairs. In “Jugnu Dhillon Versus Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. & Others”, 2014(1) CLT 588, compressor of the newly purchased AC had failed and the Hon/ble Delhi State Commission has held that failure of the compressor of the AC within2-3 months of its purchase itself amounts to manufacturing defect and principle of res ipsa loquitur should have been applied. The Hon’ble Delhi State Commission has further 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 and 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.

C. C. No. 303 of 2015                       //7//

6.                In the present case also, the alleged defect in the mobile set in question occurred during the warranty period due to manufacturing defect in it and the opposite parties have failed to rectify its defects in the mobile set or replace the mobile set in question with new one. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to receive the sale price of mobile set in question i.e. Rs.18,500/- alongwith interest. The opposite parties are also liable to pay litigation expenses to the complainant.

7.                In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted and the opposite parties are directed jointly and severally to refund the sale price i.e. Rs.18,500/- of mobile hand set in question along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 21.3.2015 till its realization. Further the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order is directed to be complied with by the opposite parties jointly and severally within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of its copy. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced                                                                               (Gurpartap Singh Brar)

28.10.2015                                                                     President    

                                                                                       (Inderjeet Kaur)                                                                                                     Member