BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.296 of 2016
Date of Institution: 8.11.2016
Date of Decision: 06.09.2017
Nirmal Singh son of Sh. Harkishan, resident of village Mangala, District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. Lava Service Center, Shri Sai Enterprises Sirsa, District Sirsa.
2. Non Stop Mobile Shoppee, Old Civil Hospital Road, Near Chawla Attaichi House, Sirsa.
3. Lava Head Office, Lava International Ltd. A-56, Sector 64, Noida 201301, Uttarpardesh, through its Manager.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. R.L. AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT………………… MEMBER
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite parties No.1 & 2 exparte.
Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party No.3.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that complainant purchased a mobile handset make Lava A72 from opposite party no.2 on 12.5.2016 and op no.2 charged an amount of Rs.6000/- from the complainant vide bill No.3216 dated 12.5.2016 and had given warranty of the same. That thereafter the complainant was shocked to notice that there was major defect in the mobile and from the day of purchasing the mobile the complainant is facing different problems and major problem in the mobile is of on and off. The complainant immediately approached to op no.2 and complained about the said defect in the mobile and on checking he directed him to approach op no.1 for repair of the mobile. The complainant had given the mobile to service centre many times but till today the problem occurred in the mobile has not been solved. That on 3.9.2016, the complainant again faced same problem in the mobile and on direction of op no.2 he approached to op no.1 and handed over the mobile to op no.1 vide receipt dated 3.9.2016 but till today mobile has not been repaired despite his repeated visits and dates given by the ops. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties no.1 and 2 did not appear and therefore they were proceeded against exparte.
3. Opposite party no.3 appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant approached answering op vide call no.510010085577 dated 3.9.2016 and reported some charging problem in his unit. The engineers of service centre thoroughly checked the unit and found that the unit was liquid logged due to mishandling on the part of complainant. The official of service center told to complainant that the unit cannot be considered under warranty as the company provides one year warranty from the date of purchase and also warranty is subject to some conditions and in violation of any condition, the unit cannot be considered under warranty and it was told to the complainant that the repair of the unit shall be on chargeable basis and accordingly an estimate of repair has been provided to the complainant but the complainant did not approve the estimate and started demanding free of cost repair/ replacement of unit. The complainant has got no cause of action against the answering op as the ops are ready to repair the unit as per conditions of warranty but the complainant is not ready to get his unit repaired accordingly.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, bill Ex.C1, copy of job sheet dated 3.9.2016 Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipts Ex.C4 to C6 and acknowledgments Ex.C7 to Ex.C9. On the other hand, op no.3 produced affidavit Ex.R1.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. It is an admitted fact between the parties that complainant purchased the mobile in question from opposite party no.2 on 12.5.2016 for a sum of Rs.6000/- which fact is also evident from bill Ex.C1. It is also an admitted fact that complainant raised problems in the mobile within warranty period of one year. In the copy of job sheet dated 3.9.2016 issued by Lava Service Center i.e. op no.1, the problems of battery over heat, automatic on and off are mentioned and the opposite party no.3 has failed to show that mobile in question was liquid logged. Learned counsel for op no.3 stated at bar that they will repair the mobile in question as per warranty condition and will charge for only spare parts and will not charge the labour charges. However, the op no.3 has failed to show any terms and condition in this regard. As the mobile set in question developed problem in the warranty period i.e. within less than period of four months of its purchase, the opposite parties are liable to repair the mobile in question free of costs.
7. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to repair the mobile in question and to make it defect free without any charges from the complainant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case the mobile in question is not repairable, then the ops will refund the amount of Rs.6000/- i.e. cost of the mobile to the complainant within a period of one month from today, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till actual payment. The ops are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. This order should be complied with by all the ops jointly and severally. The complainant is also directed to deposit the mobile in question to op no.1 well in time. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:6.9.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
