BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.139 of 2015
Date of Instt. 01.04.2015
Date of Decision :05.08.2015
Gurminder Singh son of Gulzar Singh R/o 128-B, Surya Enclave, PO Chogitti, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant Versus
1. Lava International Ltd, A-56, Sector-64, Noida-201301, UP, India.
2. Bunty Mobile World, XOLO authorized service centre, shop No.29, Anand Market Back Side Shimla Place, Near Baba Lal Dwara Mandir, Partap Bagh, Jalandhar.
3. Mobile House, Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd, Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.DK Sharma Adv., counsel for complainant.
Sh.Aditya Jain 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 he purchased mobile phone XOLO Play 8X-1200 IMEI No.911376300005560/911376300055565 for Rs.19,400/- vide retail invoice/cash memo No.29391 dated 2.9.2014 from Mobile House. From the date of purchase, the above said mobile phone was having voice problem. Due to voice problem, he submitted many times the said mobile in XOLO Company authorize service centre vide following notifications for repair.
a). 310001135995 dated 5.2.2015
b). 310001139284 dated 7.2.2015
c). 310001139284 dated 16.2.2015
d). 310001176453 dated 23.2.2015
e). 310001188753 dated 9.3.2015
f). 310001211650 dated 11.3.2015
g). 310001240219 dated 23.3.2015
2. He has also requested to XOLO company through email XOLO@care.in, reach.us@xolo.in, through SMS 9650444477 and through call to toll free No.180030100104 many times for replacing/ repairing the said mobile at the earliest otherwise he will go to Consumer Court for justice. He has received the above said phone after repair last time on 23.3.2015 from company authorized service centre but he found that the above said phone again in same (not in working) condition. The above said phone has been remaining in company authorized service centre i.e Jalandhar and Noida for repair from 5.2.2015 to till date again and again. Presently the above said phone is again in company service centre for repair but company has not taken serious action in this regard till date. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for refund of price of the mobile handset alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation.
3. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, pleading that the complainant in regards to his complaint regarding the mobile has approached the service centre with some issue in the unit at the service centre of the company on 27.3.2015 vide complaint No.310001240219 and the solution was provided to the complainant and after checking the unit no hardware was replaced and just refresh the unit software. But the complaint being adamant demanded refund to which the complainant was told that the unit of the complainant is repairable so it can not be replaced with the new one and the demand for replacement is not genuine and the same is against the company policy. But the complainant refused to take the delivery of the unit. Many times the opposite parties requested the complainant to pickup his mobile and also a registered letter was sent to the complainant on the address of the complainant but the complainant did not come forwarded to pick his mobile, the answering opposite parties are still ready to deliver the unit to the complainant. There is no manufacturing defect and merely by the oral version of the complainant it can not be ascertained that the mobile is not working properly. They denied other material averments of the complainant.
4. Upon notice, opposite party No.3 did not appear and as such it was proceeded against exparte.
5. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed evidence.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith copy of document Ex.OP1 and closed evidence.
7. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the present parties.
8. Complainant purchased the mobile handset in question vide retail invoice dated 2.9.2014 Ex.C1 for Rs.19,400/- from opposite party No.3. It is in the affidavit Ex.CW/A of the complainant that the mobile set when put to use suffered voice problem. It is further in his affidavit that he took it to opposite party No.2 vide following notifications for repair:-
a). 310001135995 dated 5.2.2015
b). 310001139284 dated 7.2.2015
c). 310001139284 dated 16.2.2015
d). 310001176453 dated 23.2.2015
e). 310001188753 dated 9.3.2015
f). 310001211650 dated 11.3.2015
g). 310001240219 dated 23.3.2015
9. The complainant has placed on record various letters/emails sent to opposite party No.1 company regarding defect in his mobile handset and same are Ex.C2 to Ex.C12 on record. The last job sheet dated 23.3.2015 is Ex.C12 and in it the problem is mentioned "no outgoing voice". At present, the mobile handset is with service centre i.e opposite party No.2. The opposite parties have produced just last job sheet dated 23.3.2015 Ex.OP1 wherein problem reported is mentioned no outgoing voice. Although it is in the written reply and affidavit Ex.OPA of Amardeep Singh submitted on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2 that registered letter was sent to the complainant but the complainant did not come forwarded to take his mobile but no copy of registered letter or postal receipt has been produced by the opposite parties No.1 & 2 in this regard. The repeated visits to the service centre and failure of the service centre to rectify the defect clearly suggests that the mobile in question is beyond repair. In his affidavit, the complainant has mentioned notifications number and dates when the mobile handset was submitted for repair. It are seven in number. The mobile handset is still with the service centre. One purchases mobile handset to use and enjoy it and not to make repeated visits to the service centre for repair. In the circumstances of the present case, we feel that the opposite party No.1 should be directed to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one.
10. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite party No.1 is directed to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one of the same make and model with fresh warranty of nine months or in the alternative to refund its price to him. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- 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
05.08.2015 Member Member President
