Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 455.
Instituted on : 19.09.2018.
Decided on : 18.03.2019.
Naveen, age 27 years, son of Sh. Vijay Kumar, Resident of House No. 322/33, Tek Nagar, Kath Mandi, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Krishna Enterprises, Gohana Adda, Rohtak, Haryana, 124001, through its proprietor.
- Oppo Mobile India Private Limited, 2nd Floor, Block 1, Vatika Business Park, Sohana road, Sector-49, Gurgaon-122001.
3. Pace Tel Systems Pvt. Ltd., Shop no. 108, 1st Floor, Anand Plaza, Chotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak, 1240041.
……….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. R.K. Jangra, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite party No. 1 already exparte.
Sh. Ravikant, Advocate for opposite parties No. 2 and 3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a mobile phone Oppo A57 from the respondent No. 1 vide invoice no.168 dated 14.11.2017 for Rs.14,000/- with one year guaranty/warranty. It is alleged that since the said mobile set was giving lot of problems like hanging and switched off automatically, the same was brought in the knowledge to opposite party No. 1. On complaint, the respondent No. 1 advised the complainant to visit the office of opposite party No. 3 which is the authorized service center of opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 3 deposited the mobile set on 26.06.2018 and on 11.09.2018 with the assurance that the same shall be returned after repair/replace but opposite party No. 3 delivered the defective mobile set after sometime. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay claim amount of Rs.14,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and also to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No. 2 and 3 in its reply has submitted that complainant had purchased said mobile phone having a warranty of one year from the date of purchase and he visited to our authorized service center twice. First time on 26.06.2018, where he reported to our authorized engineer about the heating problem while calling etc. After receiving of complaint, the case was allocated to authorized engineer. After proper inspection or testing of the said mobile, he come to the conclusion that there is no malfunction detected. He also found that the customer using local screen guard for which he suggested to change for good result. Hence, the mobile was returned to the very next day to the consumer after full observation of 24 hours upto the full satisfaction of the customer. After receiving the complaint at second time on 11.09.2018, the case was again allocated to authorized engineer and he replaced the mother board and updated the software upto the satisfaction of the customer. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No. 2 and 3. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs qua the opposite parties No. 2 and 3.
3. Whereas, opposite party No. 1 failed to appear before the Forum despite due service, hence, opposite party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.10.2018 of this Forum.
4. Complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence on dated 29.01.2019. Learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed his evidence on dated 26.02.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. After going through the file and hearing both the parties, it is observed that complainant had purchased the mobile on 14.11.2017 and defects such as heating and hanging etc appeared in mobile set on 26.06.2018 and thereafter on 11.09.2018 which is admitted by the opposite parties in their written reply. As per opposite parties, they had replaced the mother board of the mobile and the problem was resolved on 11.09.2018. But as per the complainant even after replacing the mother board, the mobile is defective and is not working properly and the same is within warranty period. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and opposite party No. 3 is liable to refund the price of mobile set in question after deduction of 40% depreciation on it as the complainant has used the mobile in question uninterruptedly for seven months.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No. 3 to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 40% depreciation i.e. to pay Rs. 8400/- (Rs. Eight thousand four hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 19.09.2018 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. As per statement made by the learned counsel for the complainant, mobile is in the possession of complainant, so, the complainant is directed to handover the mobile in question to the opposite parties at the time of receiving the payment from the opposite parties.
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:
18.03.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
