DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

   CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.99 of 2015

                                           DATE OF INSTITUTION:  01-04-2015

                                                     DATE OF ORDER: 07-09-2016

Raj Narayan son of Shri Harkishan, resident of House No. 900, Sector 23, HUDA, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.

            ……………Complainant.

VERSUS                

1. LG Shoppe Bhiwani, Near Old Bus Stand, Opp. Civil Line Thana, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.

1. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., 3^rd Floor, Ninex City Mart, Main Sohna Road, Sector 49, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018 through its authorized signatory.

1. LG Electronics India (Pvt.) Ltd., Reg. Office A-27, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate Mathura Road, New Road, New Delhi-110044.

………….. Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE: -    Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.

                    Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

                    Mrs. Sudesh, Member.

Present:-    Complainant in person.

       Shri S.S. Saini, Advocate alongwith Mahender Singh Incharge

       LG Service Centre.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                    In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that he had purchased LG handset make LG Model NEXUS-5 Model No. Mobile-LG-D-821, IMEI No. 402 KPUU488286 from the authorized dealer of OP no. 1 vide cash memo no. 261 dated 06.05.2014 for a sum of Rs. 29,500/-.  It is alleged that after some time the handset became defective and creating problems in operating mobile phone.  It is alleged that the complainant approached the Ops to provide the necessary repair service, but authorized person of the said centre told that they are not having regarding this mobile phone.  It is alleged that the complainant had approached the Ops time and again for delivering of the new mobile handset in place of defective mobile set, but they put off the matter on one pretext or the other.  The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Ops he has to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses.  Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he has to file the present complaint & prayed for seeking compensation.

2.                 On appearance, Ops has filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has not got his mobile set checked even from the authorized service centre of the answering respondent no. 2.  It is submitted that the Ops no. 2 & 3 have provided the facility of authorized service centre for its customers in almost each and every district of the country.  It is submitted that the complainant has failed to get his mobile set checked from authorized service centre once and if the complainant had been facing any problem as alleged in the mobile set, then he should have opted to get his mobile set checked at the service centre and should not have filed the present complaint.  Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                 In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence Annexure C-1  alongwith supporting affidavit.

4.                In reply thereto, the counsel for Ops has tendered into evidence Annexure R-1.

5.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the Ops.

6.                 The complainant in person reiterated the contents of his complaint.  He submitted that the mobile handset is working on anroid version 4.4 but it is not working on anroid version 6.0.

7.                The counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of the reply.  He submitted that there is no defect in the mobile handset of the complainant.  The mobile handset in question has been checked by the engineer of the company and it has been updated and it is in working condition.

8.                 Admittedly, there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile handset.  As per the contention of the complainant the mobile handset is not properly working on the latest anroid version 6.0.  However, he admitted that it is properly working on 4.4 anroid version.  The complainant in his evidence has produced the bill No. 261 dated 06.05.2014 of the mobile handset in question.  No other documentary evidence has been adduced by the complainant in support of his contention.  Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation against the Ops to the complainant, which would be adequate in the present circumstances of the case.  The Ops are directed to pay the amount of compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order by way of demand draft drawn in favour of the complainant and the same be sent to the complainant by registered post. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated:.07-09-2016.                                                                (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                                       President,        

                                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                                           Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

                    (Anamika Gupta)                (Sudesh)

                          Member                      Member