DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.<br /> CC.No.172 of 12.04.2010<br /> Decided on 31.05.2010<br /> Aseem Bajaj, Radhika Complex, #19893, Street No.6, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, 100 ft. Road, Bathinda.<br /> .......Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1. Lalli's Electronic Gallery, LG Mobile Centre, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda<br /> 2. LG After Sales Service (Customer Service Department) Customer Service Department, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.51, Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida.<br /> ......Opposite parties<br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member.<br /> Present:-<br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Nitu Monga, A.R. Of the complainant.<br /> For Opposite parties : Opposite parties already exparte.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> AMARJEET PAUL, MEMBER :-<br /> <br /> 1. In brief, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one LG KG-300 mobile set from MVS Communication on 28.02.2007 for Rs.8600/-. With passage of time it started giving errors in recognition of SIM cards from 01.12.2009 and its signals suddenly cut off displaying a message “Invalid SIM Card”. On 08.12.2009 the message “Invalid SIM Card” became permanent and the complainant was unable to make or receive calls or messages. Thereafter on 10.12.2009 he approached the opposite party No.1. The complainant was told that the Board of the Handset needs replacement due to new guidelines of IMEI in force, which would be undertaken 'free of cost' and would take at least 10 days (Service slip No. R101209004 issued). After 10 days, he went to the collect his handset but on inspection ringer was not working properly and the opposite party No.1 kept the handset again citing fault defective board to be replaced again. After 10 days when he went to take the handset, on inspection he found that the 'camera button' of the set was not working and set was kept again by the opposite party No.1 as camera button and entire left buttons i.e. No.1, 4 and 7 of keys stopped working. Thereafter, after few days it started switching off whenever a call was received or made. The complainant again approached to opposite party No.1 and was told that this time there is a problem with battery of the handset and it needs replacement and the complainant handed over the set to the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 accepted the phone again to replace the faulty Board. After 10 days, when the complainant called the opposite party No.1 to inquire about the status of his mobile set, he was told that the phone has been sent to Ludhiana for replacement of board. Thereafter the complainant visited the opposite party No.1 after 4-5 weeks. Despite his repeated requests, no status update on the condition of the handset has been conveyed. A notice regarding attitude of service centre and servicing of mobile set LG KG-300 was sent to the opposite parties on 27.03.2010 (Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3) but no response. Hence the complainant has pleaded that the opposite parties be directed to replace the handset with new one or reimburse the cost of the mobile handset (Rs.8600/-) and to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment alongwith Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation expenses. <br /> 2. Notice of the complaint was sent to opposite party Nos.1&2 but neither of the opposite parties appeared inspite of sufficient and proper service. Hence both the opposite parties were proceeded against Exparte. <br /> 3. Complainant furnished evidence to support his complaint by furnishing his affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of Notice Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3, photocopy of postal receipt Ex.C-4, photocopies of service slip/job sheets Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 and photocopy of invoice dated 28.02.2007 Ex.C-7.<br /> 4. Heard the exparte arguments of the complainant at length and perused the evidence of the complainant alongwith written arguments which establish the same and the genuine hardship and mental agony faced by the complainant from December, 2009 to till date. Complainant visited repeatedly to opposite party No.1 service centre for 6-7 times and requested to get the needful done as detailed in complaint as well as written arguments submitted by the complainant but with no positive results. The opposite party Nos. 1&2 failed to rectify major faults in the mobile handset of the complainant and still the handset in question is in possession of opposite parties. Moreover the repeatedly same fault in the handset which is not being rectified inspite of efforts of opposite party No.1 proves that set is irrepairable and it needs to be replaced. The precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Sona Auto Agency (P) Ltd. Versus Sisirendra Nath Banerjee and another 2009 CTJ 1277 (CP) (NCDRC) wherein it has been held that<br /> “Repeated servicing and repairing could be due to some serious defect, if not a manufacturing defect per se – No reason to interfere with the order of the State Commission – Revision dismissed.”<br /> 5. In conclusion this Forum is of the view that mobile set is faulty and needs to replacement. Hence we direct the opposite parties to replace the set of the complainant with a new one of the same model, specifications and price and to pay Rs.3,000/- jointly and severally as cost to the complainant for mental tension and harassment to the complainant. <br /> 6. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 7. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Amarjeet Paul)<br /> 31.05.2010 Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br />