Delhi

North West

CC/843/2016

ARVIND TOPPO - Complainant(s)

Versus

LAVA INTERNATIONAL - Opp.Party(s)

08 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-WEST

   GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.

 

CC No: 843/2016

D.No.____________________                                      Dated: ______________

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

ARVIND TOPPO S/o SH. LIBIN TOPPO,

R/o H. No. 563, BANK COLONY, DEVLI VILLAGE,

DEVLI, NEW DELHI-110062. … COMPLAINANT

 

 

Versus

 

1. M/s LAVA INTERNATIONAL LTD.,

    (THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY),

    A-56, SECTOR-64, NOIDA, (U.P.).

 

2. M/s JMV TECHNOSOL (P) LTD.,

    (THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY),

    (LAVA MOBILE AUTHORIZED SERVICE CENTRE),

    252, LAKSHDEEP BUILDING, SANT NAGAR,  

    EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI-110065.       … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)

 

 

 

CORAM :SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

                SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER

      MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER

                                                           

                                                       Date of Institution:  22.08.2016                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                            Date of decision: 08.01.2018

 

 

SH.M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

 

1.       The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP

CC No. 843/2016                                                                        Page 1 of 6

          under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby allegingthat on 23.09.2014, the complainant purchased one mobile phone Lava Irish X-1 bearing IMEI no. 911375050300072 alongwith accessories etc. for Rs.7,700/- with one year warrantee from the date of purchase from M/s Shivam Teleshop, R-22, Khaneja Complex, Shakarpur, Delhi-92 and seller assured that the product sold is original and top on the line handset in the market alongwith a hassle free post sale service of the products to the buyer. The complainant further alleged that initially the handset seems to work properly but very soon the complainant found that the mobile is not working properly then the complainant thought probably is getting accustomed to the same with the passage of time but the complainant realized that the functions & applications of the mobile set were becoming slower day by day due to which it becomes difficult to attend incoming calls, being the full touch phone,  the touch panel some time doesn’t respond in time or more often it gets hanged due to which it becomes very difficult to complete the conversation. The complainant further alleged that not only the battery back-up of the mobile was reduced considerably even the battery got inflated and when the complainant went to various service centers within limitation period but strangely none

 

CC No. 843/2016                                                                        Page 2 of 6

          was having new battery stating that the company is not providingwhile in the open market it was easily available. Now after the expiry of the warrantee period the OP is selling battery at Rs.350/- despite the fact that the complaint was made in time. The complainant further alleged that the phone was not working properly then anyhow the complainant find out the address of OP-2 and on 19.02.2015 the complainant went to OP-2 and after checking by the service engineer OP-2 took the mobile but did not issue job sheet but received the phone on visiting card and OP-2 asked the complainant to come after few hours and the complainant later received a SMS from the OPs that his handset has been received for repair being the work order no. 510003231238 dated 19.02.2015 at 5:40 p.m. The complainant further alleged that later the complainant went to OP-2 in the evening who returned the mobile phone stating that new software has been down-loaded and now the phone would work.After few days the same problems again cropped-up and the complainant again went to OP-2 on 07.03.2015, the receptionist took the phone and asked the computer engineer to carry out some update and returned the handset after two hours. The complainant further alleged that on 08.07.2015, the complainant visited the service

 

CC No. 843/2016                                                                        Page 3 of 6

          centre of OP-2 which carried service vide WO No. 510004780048 but in vainand nothing substantial was done in the handset inquestion as the same is still suffering from multiple defects i.e. hanging, low battery back-up, auto-on-off, stopping of phone launcher etc. thus making it extremely difficult for the complainant to communicate and the above acts and actions of the OPs are absolutely illegal, unlawful and amounts to deficiency in service.

2.       On these allegations the complainant filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to refund the cost of the mobile set for sum of Rs.7,700/- alongwith interest as well as compensation of Rs.75,000/- for causing mental agony, pain and harassment. The complainant also sought cost of litigation.

3.       OP-1 has been contesting the case and filed the written statement. OP-1 in its written statement submitted that the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint as the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint. OP-1 further submitted that the complainant has concealed the material facts and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. OP-1 further submitted that the complainant has not made M/s Shivam Communication from whom the product was purchased by the complainant as a party with malafide intentions and thus the complaint is not maintainable.

CC No. 843/2016                                                                        Page 4 of 6

4.       The complainant filed rejoinder to reply of OP-1 and denied the submissions of the OP-1.

5.       In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of retail invoice no. 9362 dated 23.09.2014 of Rs.7,700/-.

6.       On the other hand, on behalf of OP-1 Sh. Amardeep Singh, Legal Manager of OP-1 filed his affidavit in evidencewhich are as per the case of OP-1 taken in written statement. OP-1 also filed written arguments.

7.      This forum has considered the case of the complainant as well as OP in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant and the written arguments of the parties. The complainant has not placed on record any service report or job card in respect of the mobile handset during warrantee period or thereafter. So, it cannot be said that there is a manufacturing or inherent defect in the mobile handset. Accordingly, the complainant has failed to prove his case by any cogent evidence. Accordingly, we find no merits in the complaint and the complaint is hereby dismissed. 

8.       Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per

 

CC No. 843/2016                                                                         Page 5 of 6

          regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 8^th day of January, 2018.

 

 

 

 

BARIQ AHMED                            USHA KHANNA                  M.K.GUPTA                (MEMBER)                      (MEMBER)                    (PRESIDENT)