Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 208.
Instituted on : 18.04.2016.
Decided on : 17.07.2017.
Mandeep Rathee s/o Sh. Jagat Singh R/o H.No.1187-A/21, Prem Nagar, Hafed Road, Rothak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Krishna Mobile Ghar Chhotu Ram Chowk, Civil Road, Rohtak-124001. Through its Proprietor.
- Sai Security Systems(Sony authorized Service Centre) Near Malabar Guest House, Green Road, Rohtak-124001, through its Manager.
- Managing Director, Sony Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. A-31, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Amit Dahiya, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 & 2 exparte.
Sh. Gulshan Chawla Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a Mobile phone bearing IMEI No.352196070410345 from the opposite party No.1 on dated 12.07.2015 vide invoice No.11985 amounting to Rs.25000/-. It is averred that due to manufacturing defect in the said set from the very beginning, set has several technical problems such as slow processing, hanging problem, soft keys not working and during the calls the soft keys works automatically. The complainant had approached to the opposite party No.2 on dated 19.12.2015 and told about the problem. The opposite party no.2 submitted the said phone on the same date and gave back after a few days but the phone had same problems as it had before. It is averred that complainant had approached the opposite party No.2 again on 01.02.2016 and told them about the problem but till now the said phone is with opposite party no.2 and they are not replacing the same. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed 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 but none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1 & 2 despite service and as such opposite party no.1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.06.2016 of this Forum. However opposite party no.3 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that it is denied that the mobile phone has any technical issues such as slow processing, hanging issue, non-responsiveness of the soft keys. It is averred that all the allegations of the complainant are false and hence denied. It is averred that if the same has occurred, it is solely due to the complainant’s negligence. It is averred that free of cost and best services were provided by the opposite parties each and every time when the complainant had approached them. It is averred that opposite parties vide their letter dated 29.04.2016 requested the complainant to get the subject handset collected from its authorized service centre. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. As such it is prayed the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.3 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that as per bill Ex.C1 dated 12.07.2015, complainant had purchased the mobile set for a sum of Rs.25000/-. It is also not disputed that as per job sheet Ex.C2 dated 19.12.2015, there was problem of hanging, back button, key not working, processing slow etc. As per job sheet Ex.C3 dated 01.02.2016 also there were such problems in the mobile set. On the other hand as per letter Ex.R4, contention the handset in question was repaired by the opposite party and complainant was requested to collect the set but the complainant had not collected the same from the opposite parties.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the complainant had purchased the handset on 12.07.2015 and as per job sheet Ex.C2 the defect appeared on 19.12.2015 and the complainant deposited the handset with the opposite party no.2. But after repair of the same, again the same defects appeared in the mobile set on 01.02.2016 as is proved from the job sheet Ex.C3. It is also observed that as per job sheet Ex.C3 the mobile set was deposited by the complainant with the opposite party on 01.02.2016 but even after passing of 2½ months and till filing of the complainant i.e. 18.04.2016 the handset was not repaired by the opposite parties. The letter Ex.R4 dated 29.04.2016 was only written to the complainant after filing of complaint by him. In this regard we have placed reliance 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”, as per II (2009) CPJ 240 titled as Jagdish Prasad Khandelwal vs. Partap Chandra Behera & Ors., Hon’ble Orissa State Commission, Cuttak has held that: “Dealer-Liability-Manufacturing defect-dealer requested manufacturer to replace effective goods having sufficient discharged his responsibility, dealer, cannot be made liable for deficiency in service order against dealer set aside in appeal-manufacturer alone held liable to replace defective goods or to refund price thereof”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the complainant is entitled for the refund of price of mobile set from the opposite party no.3. i.e. manufacturer.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed as per the statement made by ld. Counsel for the complainant on dated 12.05.2017 the mobile set in question is already in the possession of opposite party No.2. As such opposite party no.3 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.25000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.18.04.2016 till its actual 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 interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
17.07.2017.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
....................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
……………………………..
Ved Pal, Member
