Haryana

Ambala

CC/85/2016

Sanjeev Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Akash Garg

29 Dec 2017

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        :  85 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution         : 10.02.2016

                                                          Date of decision   : 29.12.2017

 

Sanjeev Kumar s/o Sh. Phool  Chand R/o V.P.O. Adhoya, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.       LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. A Wing (3^rd Floor0, D-3, District Center, Saket, New Delhi-110017.

2.       B.S.R.Communication back side of Nigar Cinema, Gandhi Market, Ambala Cantt, through its authorized Signatory.

3.       Sony Mobiles Railway Road Barara, District Ambala, through its authorized Signatory.

        ….….Opposite Parties.

 

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

                  

 

Present:       Sh.Akash Garg, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Rajeev Sachdeva, counsel for OPs 1 & 2.

OP No. 3 already ex parte v.o.d. 02.06.2017.

 

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant purchased a mobile phone LG model LG-D380 on 12.05.2015 from opposite party no.3 for Rs. 14000/- which was manufactured/imported by OP No.1. OP No.3 has given a guarantee of one year is up to 12.05.2016 of any defect in the above said mobile and also assured to provide free service on the abovesaid mobile to complainant during that period. After few months of the purchasing of the said mobile was not working properly its mobile data and wi-fi function got on without any instruction and started downloading unnecessary files. Thereafter, the complainant on 18.01.2016 contacted to OP No.2 regarding the above said problem  in the said mobile phone. A job sheet had been prepared on the same day by the service engineer of OP No.2 with assurance that complainant has nothing to pay for this and also said that it is a technical/manufacturing problem on our part them remove  the abovesaid defect from the phone as per guarantee term as soon as possible. After that, on verbal inquiry on phone from service center i.e. OP No.2 where complainant submit his mobile phone in question, they informed the complainant  that phone in question will be sent back to our company and further assured that they remove  the abovesaid defect of your  mobile under guarantee period and contacted them after 15 days. After 15 days i.e. 05.02.2016 they asked to the complainant to pay Rs. 7000/-for the removal of the said problem. Thereafter complainant told them that the said phone is under guarantee period  and they also assured to him that the defect will be removed in guarantee period  and nothing have to pay for this and they also  said that it is a technical/manufacturing problem on our part so the complainant is not entitled to pay any charges thereafter they refused to remove the defect of the mobile and till date mobile phone is laying in the custody of OP No.2. The complainant approached the service center i.e. OP No.2 but they misguided and made lame excuse. In this way, the complainant has suffered a financial loss and mental harassment. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Registered notice issued to OP No.3 but none has turned up on his behalf and he was were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.06.2017. Upon notice, OPs No. 1 & 2 appeared through counsel and tendered separate written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable, no locus standi, cause of action and the complainant had not come before the Court with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts. On merits, learned counsel for the OPs No. 1 & 2 has been submitted that mobile phone have been provided to complainant with one year warranty and not guarantee. They also stated that complainant has rooted his mobile set. Rooting is a process that allows Android Device users to attain a privileged control of the device’s internal file system. Rooting allows the users to change the Phone’s internal parameters, Calibration Data, IMEI etc. and thereby affects the phone’s operation & performance. This fact was told to the complainant upon which  he adamantly  wanted the replacement of his handset which had been denied by the OP No.2. He further admitted that he had been asked to deposit Rs. 6000/-( not Rs.7000/-). No unfair trade practice had been shown  by the OP No. 1 & 2. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayed for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X with documents as annexure C-1 & annexure C-2 and close her evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 tendered affidavit as Annexure R/A with documents as Annexure R/1 & Annexure R/2 and close their evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file. The complainant had purchased the mobile in question on 12.05.2015 and it developed problem during warranty period as is shown in Job Sheet Annexure C2 dated 18.01.2016. The mobile in question went out of order during warranty period, therefore, it was for the OPs to get the same defect free of costs but it is strange that OP No.2 wished to charge Rs.7000/- from the complainant on account of repairing of the same. The complainant visited service centre/OP No.2 but despite that his grievance has not been removed. The complainant has specifically pleaded in para No.6 that the OP No.2 had kept the mobile in question for 15 days for removing the defect even then mobile in question still laying in the custody of the OP No.2 same facts has been not been denied in the written statement filed by OP No.2, meaning thereby the mobile in the question still laying with OP No.2.

The complainant has been able to prove this case the mobile in question went out of order during warranty period and the OPs have failed to rectify the problem occurred in the mobile which makes them deficient in providing service in view of the Section 2 (1) (f) of Consumer Protection Act which defines the word ‘defect’ by way of the Act which is to the following effect:

“Defect means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied, or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.”

There is enough on the record that the set in question went out of order within warranty period and the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

5.                     In view of above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed with cost which is assessed Rs.3000/- and Ops are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To refund the cost of the mobile in question amounting to Rs. 14000/- with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.

(ii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on account of cost of proceedings as assessed above.

                   Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :29.12.2017    

(D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                    President

 

    

             (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member