Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 206.
Instituted on : 18.04.2016.
Decided on : 19.09.2016.
Sh. Amit s/o Sh. Shyam Lal R/o H.No.217, Ward No.4, Gohana Road, Surya Nagar-Rohtak Age-23 years, Ph.No.7206660009.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Proprietor, Shri Hari Computer Solutions, Plot No.-189 Cue HUDA Complex, Rohtak-124001(Haryana).
- Manager Registered office, Lenovo(India) Pvt. Ltd., Ferns Icon, Level 2, Doddenakundi Village, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, K.R.Puram, Hobli, Bangalore-560037(Karnataka).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Digvijay Jakhar, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 exparte.
Ms. Chetna Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a Mobile phone model Lenovo Z90a40 G2000L bearing IMEI No.867296025937018, 867296025937026 for a sum of Rs.24500/- vide bill No.10114 dated 12.12.2015. It is averred that respondent no.2 is the manufacturer/official of the Lenovo Mobiles and opposite party no.1 is the authorized service centre of opposite party no.2. It is averred that just after one month of purchase of the said mobile, it started creating problems e.g. hanging issue, application start open automatically, poor battery life, shutdown without giving any command, software issue, heating issue, battery drains very fast etc. and therefore the complainant went to the opposite party no.1 many times but every time opposite party no.1 just format it and returned without repairing it properly and never provided any receipt of job sheet to the complainant. It is averred that complainant contacted the opposite party No.1 on 14.03.2016 and 15.03.2016, 25.03.2016 and 28.03.2016 but neither the defect was removed nor any job sheet was provided to the complainant. It is averred that the material used by the manufacturer is defective, inferior and below the standard norms of the manufacturer i.e. opposite party no.2. It is averred that the complainant also served a legal notice dated 28.03.2016 upon the opposite parties but the same was not replied. It is averred the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of mobile set alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite parties. But none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 despite service and as such opposite party no.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.06.2016 of this Forum. However opposite party no.2 appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that complainant approached the service centre only after 3 months from the date of purchase to resolve the issues/problems not in the span of 1 month from the date of purchased as alleged by the complainant in his complainant. It is averred that complainant has visited the service centre only once for which the service was provided with complete satisfaction of the complainant. It is averred that later on there were no service calls lodged for any other issue. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It is prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. counsel for opposite party no.2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R2 and has closed her evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that as per invoice Ex.P1 dated 12.12.2015 the complainant had purchased the mobile set for a sum of Rs.24500/-. It is also not disputed that the alleged handset was defective and as per job sheet dated 14.03.2016 issued by opposite party no.1 placed on record as Ex.P2 dated 14.03.2016 there was problem of “hanging and no data” and after that complainant made regular correspondence with the opposite party company through emails Ex.P7 to Ex.P12 regarding the defects in the mobile set and non-issuing of job sheet by the opposite party no.1 but every time the reply was that “Our team is working on your query and shall revert to you through a call or an e-mail”. Complainant also served a legal notice Ex.P13 but the same was not replied by the opposite parties.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the mobile in question was purchased by the complainant on 12.12.2015 and as per the job sheet Ex.P2 and emails Ex.P7 to Ex.P12 the defect in the mobile set appeared just after three months of its purchase and during the warranty period. As per complaint, affidavit and documents placed on record, the mobile set could not be repaired/replaced by the opposite parties during the warranty period despite repeated requests of the complainant. It is also on record that opposite party no.2 did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite party no.2 has nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite party regarding not removing the defect in the mobile set and non-providing of job sheet etc. stands proved. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in 1998(3)CCC 65(P & H) Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sardari Lal Vs. Kartar Singh & Ors. has held that: Non-appearance of a party as a witness in the suit-Gives rise to a strong presumption against him” and as per 2014(1)CLT588 titled Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. & Others Hon’ble Delhi State Commission has held that: “In the event when a product is found to be defective at the very beginning it is always better to order for the refund of the amount because replacement of the product will never satisfied the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product-if the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and if develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that it is a fit case where the refund of price is justified. As per statement dated 06.09.2016 made by ld. counsel for the complainant, the mobile set in question is in the possession of complainant.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that complainant shall hand over the mobile set in question with the opposite parties and in turn opposite party No.2 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set i.e Rs.24500/-(Rupees twenty four thousand five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 18.04.2016 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry further interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
19.09.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
……………………………..
Komal Khanna, Member
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
