Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 702.
Instituted on : 11.12.2017.
Decided on : 26.10.2018.
Manoj Singh s/o Sh. Amar Singh R/o H.No.307/22 Rishi Nagar Ladhout Road Near K.D.School Roahtak..
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Lenovo Zuk India Pvt. Ltd.- Vatlka Business Park, 1st Floor, Tower A, Sohna Road, Sector-49, Gurgaon-122108(Near Omex Mall).
- Amazon .In, Amiable Electronics Private Limited, Moto G-Plus, 4th Gen(Black, 32 GB).
- Swastik System Centre, SCF 42, HUDA Complex, Rohtak-124001, Haryana.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT.SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite party No.1 & 3 exparte.
Sh.Vikram Khattar Advocate for opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a mobile phone Lenovo Zuk Zi online from the opposite party No.2 for a sum of Rs.11039/- on 22.01.2017. That from the very beginning, the above said mobile phone started creating problem like heat up, hang, out of control and auto on/off etc. That complainant contacted the OP No.3 but the officials of OP No.3 refused to repair the same on the ground that there was no problem in that phone. That thereafter the problem of mic appeared and he contacted the OP No.3 on 28.11.2017 but they told that the mobile was out of warranty whereas it was within warranty. That the OPs are un-necessarily harassing the complainant and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of mobile set alongwith interest, compensation and cost of litigation as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice issued to OP No.1 through registered post not received back either served or unserved. As such opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.01.2018 of this Forum.. Opposite party No.3 also did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 20.09.2018 of this Forum. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that OP No.2 act as a facilitator between buyer and seller of the goods and services via the said website which provides an online marketplace platform to sellers to sell their product online to the prospective buyers. That OP No.2 is neither responsible for the products that are listed on the website by various third party sellers nor does it influence any customer in any manner. That opposite party has no role to play in the grievances held by the complainant and the present complaint merits dismissal qua the OP No.2.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant had purchased the mobile on 22.01.2017 and as per job sheet placed on record Ex.C1, dated 28.11.2017 there were defects like battery back very weak, mic not working & device over heat but the mobile is shown as out of warranty whereas the mobile was within warranty. That the mobile set could not be repaired by the opposite parties within warranty period which shows deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It is also submitted by the OP no.2 in its reply that dispute in hand pertains to manufacturing defect and it is the seller or manufacturer of the product who can resolve the grievances of the complainant. However OP No.1 & 3 i.e. manufacturer and service centre did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding defect in the mobile set stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and they are liable to refund the price of mobile set.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.1 i.e. manufacturer to refund the price of mobile set i.e. to pay Rs.11039/- (Rupees eleven thousand and thirty nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 11.12.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the OP No.1 or 3 at the time of payment by the OP No.1.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
26.10.2018.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member
