BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.235 of 2015

Date of Instt. 03.06.2015

Date of Decision :05.11.2015

Dikshit Sood aged about 24 years son of Deepak Sood, R/o H.No.515, Moh.Garhi Bahadurpur, Hoshiarpur.

..........Complainant Versus

1. L.G.Electronics India Pvt Ltd., Plot No.51, Surajpur Kansa Road, Greater, Noida, through its MD.

2. L.G.Electronics India Pvt Ltd., 148/1, SUS Nagar, Jalandhar through its Manager.

3. Mobile House, Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd., Phagwara Gate, near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar, through its Prop.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Satnam Singh Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Opposite party No.3 exparte.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased the mobile phone of L.G. L70 (D325) bearing EMEI No.352270064890851 from OP No.3, vide receipt No.11067 dated 3.6.2014 for the consideration of Rs.13900/-. At the time of purchasing of mobile phone by complainant, the seller i.e opposite party No.3 gave one year warranty on the behalf of other opposite parties and ensure the complainant that if any kind of technical fault will occur then the set will be repaired or replaced with new one. The said mobile phone got technical problem i.e touch pad problem, motion sensor calibration, heat up while using mobile phone, hanging problem. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 regarding the problem in the mobile on dated 28.7.2014 and opposite party No.2 received the mobile phone from the complainant and provide job sheet. The opposite party No.2 handed over the mobile phone to the complainant and assured that it will work properly/perfectly. After one month, the said mobile phone started giving the sensor problem, dust, touch problem and hanging problem and the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and again handed over the said phone to opposite party No.2. After receiving and verifying the same, the opposite party No.2 handed over the job sheet to the complainant. The problem remained same while using the mobile phone. On 10.2.2015 the complainant again approached opposite party No.2 regarding the above said problem in the mobile phone. The opposite party No.2 handed over the mobile to complainant and assured that now it will work properly. On 29.5.2015 the complainant again approached opposite party No.2 regarding the above said problem in the mobile phone and again handed over the said phone to opposite party No.2 After receiving and verifying the same, the opposite party No.2 handed over the job sheet to the complainant and the same day opposite party No.2 replaced the motherboard of mobile phone and issued the new EMEI No.35624806 6506952 and assured that now it will work properly. On 1.6.2015 the complainant again approached opposite party No.2 regarding the above said problems in mobile phone and opposite party No.2 told the complainant that the mobile set is having the major problem and refused to entertain the complainant by saying that the mobile phone has been repaired so many times, now they are unable to rectify the defect in the mobile phone of the complainant and the complainant asked the opposite party No.1 that the mobile phone is within guaranty/warranty period and it is its duty to rectify the problem in the mobile phone but the opposite party No.1 refused the same. There is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the mobile phone or to refund its price. He has also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the real facts are that the complainant has purchased the mobile in question from the opposite party No.3 and came to the service centre of replying parties on 22.8.2014 complaining the problem in LCD which has been rectified by replacing the LCD to the satisfaction of the complainant vide complaint No.RNA 140822016356 and again came on 10.1.2015 to the service centre of opposite parties No.1 & 2 and the opposite party found that the screen of the mobile phone was broken and the complainant had only taken the estimate from the service centre and have not got repaired the same, this fact has been suppressed by the complainant and as such is not entitled for any claim. It is pertinent to mention that the warranty given by company itself stands finished if the handed has not been properly handled and the same got broken which has been done in the present case. Further the complainant again came to the service centre of answering opposite parties with the same broken screen and the same was repaired on the cost of the customer on 10.2.2015 vide complaint No.RNA 150210047389. The complainant has again came to the service centre with the answering opposite parties complaining in the handset and the company keeping in view the relationship with the customer have replaced the main PCB of the handset in question despite the expiry of the warranty without any cost. But the complainant only in order to pressurize the opposite parties and to claim a false claim have filed the present complaint which is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the complainant himself is wrong doer. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Opposite party No.2 did not appear inspite of notice and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.8 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. The complainant purchased the mobile handset in question from opposite party No.3 vide retail invoice dated 3.6.2014 Ex.C1. According to the complainant, soon after purchase the mobile handset developed defect and was given to opposite party No.2 vide job sheet but thereafter it again started giving problem of sensor, touch etc and he approached to opposite party No.2 and handed over the mobile to it vide job sheet. Further according to the complainant problem remained same and on 10.2.2015 he again approached the service centre with mobile phone and it handed over the same to him and assured that now it will work properly. Further according to the complainant on 29.5.2015 he again approached the service centre and handed over the mobile phone to it vide job sheet and service centre replaced the motherboard of the mobile with the assurance that now it will work properly. Further according to the complainant on 1.6.2015 he again approached regarding the above said problems to the service centre but they refused to entertain the complainant. He further contended that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile handset and it is liable to be replaced. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 & 2 that complainant has suppressed the material facts and infact on 10.1.2015 the complainant came to the service centre with physical damage to the set as its touch screen was broken and he obtained estimate of repair Ex.C8 but did not get the set repaired and thereafter on 10.2.2015 the complainant got repaired the handset on chargeable basis vide retail invoice dated 10.2.2015 Ex.C7. He further contended that in case of physical damage, the complainant is not entitled to warranty. He further contended that otherwise whenever the complainant approached the service centre, resolution was proved to him. He further contended that opposite parties No.1 & 2 are still ready to rectify the defect in the mobile handset of the complainant, if any as per terms and conditions of the warranty free of cost. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by both the parties. In the job sheet dated 28.7.2014 sensor and dust problems are mentioned. In the job sheet Ex.C3 sensor, dust and touch problems are mentioned. In the job sheet dated 10.2.2015 Ex.C4 touch problem is mentioned. In the job sheet dated 29.5.2015 sensor and touch problem etc are mentioned. The service centre rectified these defects. However, from the estimate dated 10.1.2015 Ex.C8 it is evident that on this occasion it was case of physical damage as touch screen was broken. The complainant got repaired the damaged set vide retail invoice dated 10.2.2015 on chargeable basis. In case of physical damage, the complainant is not entitled to warranty. However, at the time of arguments, learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 & 2 stated at bar that opposite parties No.1 & 2 are still ready to rectify the defect in the mobile handset, if any free of cost. The complainant has failed to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. Under the warranty the manufacturer or service centre is only liable to repair the set and rectify the defect unless there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset which can not be removed by repair or replacement of any part.

8. In the above circumstances, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties No.1 & 2 are directed to repair and rectify the defect in the mobile handset of the complainant free of cost. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost or compensation. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

05.11.2015 Member Member President