DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.432 of 25-08-2011 Decided on 20-10-2011 Rohit Kumar S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram, aged about 31 years, Resident of # 19601, Street No.2, Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus
L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.51, Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida-201306 (U.P.) through its M.D. Lali's Electronics Gallery, Authorized Service Centre of L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Bhandari Timber Store, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda-151001, (Punjab), through its proprietor/partner/owner.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member Present:- For the Complainant: Sh. Deepak Sehgal, counsel for the complainant For Opposite parties: Opposite parties exparte
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one L.G. Mobile set having model No.LG GD 510, IMEI No.359930030478536 for a sum of Rs.6,650/- from Neuron Technologies, opposite MSD School, Hanuman Chowk, Bathinda on 01.12.2010 with one year guarantee and the complainant was assured that in case any problem during guarantee period, the company will repair/replace it free of cost through is Authorized Service Centre i.e. opposite party No.2. After few days of its purchase, the said mobile handset started giving problem, there were manufacturing defects in it; its screen did not work properly and frequently displayed data only in half of portion. Some times, it hanged up during calls and got switch off. On 08.12.2010, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 with all these problems to the opposite party No.2 and he was conveyed by the opposite party No.2 that there must be battery problem and the mobile set was sent to the opposite party No.1 to rectify the problems. The complainant asked for job sheet but the opposite party No.2 instead of issuing the job sheet, gave their business card and mentioned particulars of the mobile set on the back side of business card. After 2-3 visits i.e. after about 20 days, the complainant got his mobile set from the opposite party No.2. Thereafter, the complainant found that the problem of frequently switch off have been solved but the problem of LCD/Display and hang up, not solved by the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 conveyed the complainant that there is software problem in all these models, manufactured by the opposite party No.1 and they will update the software. The complainant asked for job sheet but no job sheet was issued rather, the mobile set was updated within half an hour. After updating the software in the mobile set, the problem did not occur for about a month but after a month, the same problem reoccurred and the complainant lost his personal data, important contact numbers etc and before 17.08.2011 a number of times the complainant has updated the personal data important contact numbers but till date, the complainant's mobile set has the same problem. The complainant has requested the opposite party No.2 for changing the mobile set or to refund the amount of Rs.6,650/-. On 17.08.2011, the complainant has given its mobile set to the opposite party No.2, the opposite party No.2 retained the same and told the complainant that it would check the said mobile set after replacement of its display and asked the complainant to collect the same after 2-3 days. The complainant asked for job sheet but the representative of the opposite party No.2 namely Amrinder Kaur refused to give the job sheet as they have no stationary and had never issued the job sheet to the complainant and the representative of the opposite party No.1 Amrinder Kaur asked the complainant to deposit Rs.1,500/- being repair charges of the mobile set and asked him to collect the same next day. The complainant's mobile set is within warranty of one year and despite that the opposite party No.2 asked him to deposit Rs.1,500/- as repair charges. On the request of the complainant, a manual receipt has been issued to him. The complainant got the receipt of the mobile set dated 19.08.2011 issued by the opposite party No.2, after mentioning LCD problem and Rs.1,500/- on it. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint. 2. The opposite parties despite service of summon/notice have failed to appear before this Forum. Hence, exparte proceedings are taken against opposite parties. 3. To support his version, the complainant has led the documents in his evidence, his affidavits dated 25.08.2011 and 20.10.2011 Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-5 respectively; photocopy of Retail Invoice No.2569 dated 01.12.2010 Ex.C-2; photocopy of business card of authorized service station Ex.C-3 and photocopy of job card Ex.C-4 respectively. 4. Arguments heard, record alongwith written submissions submitted by the complainant perused and considered. 5. The main contention of the complainant is that the mobile set in question started giving problems from first week of its purchase. It had various defects in it as its screen did not work properly and frequently display data only in half of portion of the screen. The mobile set in question hang up during calls and get switched off. The complainant has lodged the complaint with the opposite party No.2 on 08.12.2010, complaining all the problems to the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 conveyed that there is battery problem and they will send the mobile set to the opposite party No.1 to rectify the problems and asked him to collect the mobile after a week. They have not issued any job sheet rather gave their business card and mentioned particulars of the mobile set on the back side of the business card. After about 20 days, the complainant got his mobile set and he found that the problem relating to switch off has been solved but the problem of LCD/Display and hang up not rectified. The opposite party No.2 conveyed that there is software problem in all these models, manufactured by the opposite party No.1 and updated the mobile set within half an hour. This problem did not come for about one month but after one month, the problem was again occurred and the complainant lost his personal data, important contact numbers etc and before 17.08.2011 a number of times the complainant has updated the personal data and important contact numbers but till date, the complainant's mobile set has the same problem and the display was not working properly. The complainant again went to the opposite party No.2 with the above mentioned problem. The opposite party No.2 after checking the mobile set, retained it and conveyed the complainant that now the opposite party No.2 would check it after replacement of its display and asked the complainant to collect the same after 2-3 days. The complainant asked for job sheet but the representative of the opposite party No.2, Amrinder Kaur refused to give the job sheet as they have no stationary and asked the complainant to deposit Rs.1,500/- being repair charges of the mobile set and asked him to collect the same next day. On insistence of the complainant as he has to go out of station, a receipt on a paper was issued. On this receipt, LCD problem and Rs.1,500/- has been mentioned. 6. The complainant was surprised to know that when his mobile set was within warranty period then why the opposite party No.2 is asking the complainant to deposit the amount of Rs.1,500/-. 7. A perusal of record placed on file shows that the complainant has purchased one L.G. Mobile set for Rs.6,650/- on 01.12.2010 with one year warranty/guarantee. Ex.C-3 shows that at the back side of their business card, the opposite party No.2 has mentioned word GD510 and Battery and receipt has been issued wherein, it has been mentioned vide Ex.C-4, LCD problem. 8. Nothing has been produced by the complainant to prove the manufacturing defect in the mobile handset in question. The complainant has alleged that the said mobile set is still in the custody of the opposite party No.2 and they are demanding Rs.1,500/- as repair charges. The complainant has alleged that the defect had occurred in the mobile set in question in very first week of its purchase. One year warranty/guarantee has been provided by the company on the said mobile handset. The problem occurred in the mobile set again and again but the same could not be rectified and now the mobile handset is in the custody of the opposite party No.2. The opposite parties have failed to appear before this Forum, therefore admitting their deficiency. 9. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.2,000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite parties and the opposite parties are directed to repair the mobile handset in question free of cost as the same is within warranty period. Compliance of this order be done jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ' Pronounced in open Forum 20-10-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member |
