BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.398 of 2014

Date of Instt. 12.11.2014

Date of Decision :09.04.2015

Varinder Kumar Jain son of Kundan Lal aged about 60 years R/o NL 261, Ram Gali, Malkan Chowk, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Lave Authorized Service Centre, Bunty Mobile World, Hotel Preet Market, Nakodar Road, Near Lovely Sweets, Jalandhar City through its Owner/Manager/Authorized Person.

2. Lava Mobile Company through its MD/Authorized Officer/ Customer Care Officer, A-56, Sector 64, Noida-201301, U.P.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Ravish Malhotra Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Aditya Jain Adv., counsel for OPs.

Order

Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the opposite party No.1 is the authorized service centre of Lava Mobiles. The opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of the Lava Mobiles. The complainant purchased a new sealed Lava mobile mode number IRIS 405 with IMEI No.911305951718361 on 20.11.2013 amounting to Rs.6000/-. From last three months, complainant noticed the manufacturing defect and faced the touch, network and display problem in the mobile handset and immediately on 20.8.2014 rushed to opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 also noticed the same problem in the mobile set and assured the complainant that same shall be resolved within one or two days. On 23.8.2014 opposite party No.1 gave back the mobile set to the complainant claiming that problem has been resolved but it was not so. On 25.8.2014 complainant again went to opposite party No.1 and they told that there is some defect in the mother board of the set. The opposite party No.1 returned the mobile set on 20.10.2014 and charged Rs.1200/- for replacing the touch screen of mobile. When complainant told that the set is within warranty period, then opposite party No.1 told that this portion of mobile does not cover in warranty period. It was utmost surprise for the complainant when he saw the mobile set is not working again after spending a huge amount on it. The complainant gave back the mobile set to opposite party No.1 for repair the same immediately on 20.10.2014. Complainant approached the opposite party No.1 many times for receiving back his mobile set but opposite party No.1 linger on matter on one pretext or another and is not handing over the mobile set to complainant after resolving the problem and till date the mobile set is lying with the opposite party No.1 and no status of his mobile set is being informed to him. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the mobile handset of the complainant. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that complainant has approached the service centre with some issue in the unit at the service centre of the company and the unit was found liquid logged so it was told to the complainant that the warranty of the unit is barred due to water logging and repaired the unit as per company policy, thereafter on 20.10.2014 complainant again visited the opposite party and submitted the unit and repaired unit is still lying with opposite party No.1 but the complainant did not turn up and the opposite party No.1 made many telephonic calls to the complainant to take the delivery of the unit but the complainant did not give any satisfactory answer. It is further submitted that the unit is lying OK and opposite parties were and are still ready to return the unit to the complainant. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A and closed evidence.

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

6. The complainant purchased the handset in question from mobile house on 20.11.2013 vide retail invoice Ex.C1 for Rs.6000/-. According to complainant during last three months, he noticed the manufacturing defect and faced the touch, network and display problem and on 20.8.2014 went to opposite part No.1 and opposite party No.1 also noticed the same problem and it gave back the mobile set to him claiming that problem has been resolved but it was not so. Further according to the complainant, on 25.8.2014 he again went to opposite party No.1 and it told that there is some defect in the mother board of the set and opposite party No.1 returned the mobile set and charged Rs.1200/- for replacing the touch screen although it was in warranty period. Further according to the complainant, the mobile set was not working properly again and he gave back mobile set to opposite party for repair on 20.10.2014 but till date it has not been returned to him and same is lying with opposite party No.1 According to the opposite parties, the handset has been repaired and same is still with opposite party No.1 but complainant did not turn-up to receive back the same and opposite party No.1 is still ready to return the unit to him. So far as charging of Rs.1200/- by service centre is concerned, the complainant has himself produced document Ex.C3 wherein it is mentioned that touch broken and out of warranty. So in case of physical damage, the handset is not covered under warranty and service centre has rightly charged Rs.1200/- for replacing the touch screen. According to the opposite parties the mobile handset is lying in repaired condition but complainant has not come present to collect the same and further it was also produced before this Forum but complainant refused to receive the same. On 20.3.2015 statement of learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2 was recorded wherein he has specifically stated that the mobile handset of the complainant has been repaired by company and complainant has been requested several times to take the mobile but he has refused to do so. It is further in his statement that even the repaired mobile set has been produced in the Forum today i.e on that day and was produced during the last date of hearing but complainant has refused to receive the mobile handset. So this fact clearly show that the opposite parties No.1 & 2 have repaired the mobile handset of the complainant but complainant has refused to receive back the same during pendency of the present complaint. Where mobile or any equipment or machinery can be repaired, replacement can not be ordered.

7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is disposed off with the directions to opposite parties to hand over the mobile handset of the complainant in fully repaired condition immediately on receipt of copy of this order. The complainant shall visit the service centre i.e opposite party No.1 to collect the mobile handset in repaired condition. However, the opposite parties have not produced any record to show that before filing of the present complaint it sent any letter intimating the complainant that his mobile handset is lying in repaired condition and he may collect the same. It was only during pendency of the present complaint that counsel for the opposite parties No.1 & 2 made statement on 20.3.2015 that mobile handset of the complainant has been repaired. So in this view of matter, the complainant is granted Rs.2000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. 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

09.04.2015 Member Member President