Haryana

Panchkula

CC/59/2016

PARDEEP. - Complainant(s)

Versus

LAVA INTERNATIONAL LTD & ANOTHERS. - Opp.Party(s)

SONIA SAINI

08 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	59 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	11.03.2016
Date of Decision	:	08.08.2016

                                                                                            

Pardeep, R/o VPO Deeg, Near Bus Stand, District Kurukshetra, Haryana-136125.

2^nd address:-

Pardeep C/o P.S. Sector-14, Panchkula.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Lava International Ltd., GGN Sohna, through its Managing Director/Director/Prop./Partner/Authorised signatory.

2.       Manav Enterprises, SCO No.45, Cabin No.219, Sector-11, Panchkula through its Prop.

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Ms.Sonia Saini, Adv., for the complainant.

              Mr.Mukhbir Singh, Adv., for the OP No.1.

OP No.2 already ex-parte. 

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a XOLO Black 1X 32GB mobile phone bearing IMEI No.911482551184706 online from the Op No.1 vide retail invoice No.SC4A72/15-16/87540 (Annexure C-1) dated 20.12.2015 for a sum of Rs.9,500/- with a warranty of one year and the same was delivered to him through Blue Dart Express Limited. But after some days of its purchase, the mobile phone started giving problems as contacts were not showing some time and hangs up on other application. The complainant approached the Op No.1 who directed him to take the mobile to the Op No.2. Then the complainant submitted his mobile phone to the Op No.2 vide work order No.510007647333 dated 09.02.2016 and after some days, the complainant had taken the delivery of his mobile phone from the Op No.2 after repair but the same again started giving problem. The complainant again approached the Op No.2 who had taken the mobile phone of the complainant but till the filing of the complaint, the problem from the mobile phone was not removed and the same is lying with the Op No.2. The complainant again visited the Op No.2 with regard to rectification of the fault but it failed to give any assurance to him. The complainant also requested the Op No.2 to replace the mobile phone with new one but to no avail. This act and conduct on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
2. In reply, the Op No.1 filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the Op No.1 is a renowned company and has established a number of service centers all over the country to prove after sale services to its customers and if there was any issue regarding the mobile phone, the complainant might approach any of service center of Op No.1. It is submitted that Company provides one year warranty and warranty means repairs not replacement and though the warranty is subject to some conditions i.e. Liqid/water logged, serial number missing, physically damaged, mishandling and tampering etc. It is submitted that the Op No.1 is a renowned company in electronic products and commodities and is manufacturing electronic products for the past several years. It is submitted that the technology used by the company in manufacturing the world class electronic products is highly sophisticated. It is submitted that the present complaint is filed without any expert opinion which will prove that the mobile was not working properly. It is submitted that as per section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, the hand set is required to be checked by the proper analysis/test by the appropriate Laboratary. It is submitted that on 09.02.2016, the complainant approached the Op No.2 for issue of software and after doing needful returned the mobile phone to the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Notice was issued to the Op No.2 through registered post but none has appeared on behalf of the OP No.2. It is deemed to be served and the Op No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.05.2016.
4. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 & C-2 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Op No.1 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R1/A and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
6. The sale of XOLO Black 1X 32 GB bearing IMEI No.911482551184706 vide retail invoice dated 20.12.2015 from the Op No.1 online for a sum of Rs.9,500/- with a warranty of one year (Annexure C-1) is admitted.
7. The main grouse of the complainant is that the mobile phone in not showing the contacts some time and hangs up other application. The complainant contacted the Op No.2 to resolve the problem who issued job sheet dated 09.02.2016 (Annexure C-2) with remarks in the column of problem description symptom reported “contacts not show some time & hangs up on other application” and after some days, the complainant got the delivery of the mobile phone but after some days, the mobile again started giving problem. The complainant again approached the Op No.2 for rectification of fault but till the filing of complaint, problem was not sorted out and the mobile phone is also lying with the OP No.2.
8. Moreover, the Op No.2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Op No.2 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
9. In the present complaint, the complainant has rightly prayed for refund of the amount paid towards the cost of hand set as he was deprived of its usage inspite of spending such a handsome amount for the purchase of the hand set. The demand of the complainant for the refund of the price value of the hand set is due to the manufacturing defect in the hand set and proves from product quality as well as poor services.
10. After having considered the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the non-providing of proper service and non-rectification of problem in the hand set clearly proves the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
11. In the totality of circumstances of the case, we have no reservation in coming to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of Ops in providing the services and we so view accordingly.
12. Resultantly, we find merit in the complaint, therefore, the same is allowed accordingly. The Ops, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-
    1. To refund Rs.9500/- the cost of the mobile hand set in question to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 20.12.2015 till realization.
    2. To make the payment of Rs.2000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony, physical harassment.
    3. To make the payment of Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation.
13. This order be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

08.08.2016      S.P.ATTRI           ANITA KAPOOR            DHARAM PAL

                        MEMBER         MEMBER                       PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                          

                                                     DHARAM PAL 

                                                     PRESIDENT