DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 315
Instituted on: 07.07.2017
Decided on: 20.09.2017
Sunil Kumar Goyal son of Bhagwan Dass resident of Street No.2, Aggar Nagar, Sangrur.
…. Complainant
Versus
1. LYF Smartphone+, Manufacturing by GL Telecom Ltd. and north on Road-9, or Technology East, Onyinye Road, High Technology Development District Heyuan City, Gurgaon ( Haryana) through M.D.
2. Reliance Retail Limited. PB- SGRR-JC-01, Ist and 2md Floor, Railway Station Road, Near LIC Office, Sangrur through its authorized Manager.
3. Guru Kirpa Enterprises, Near Bus Stand, Sangrur through its owner/ proprietor.
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Shri S.S.Randhawa Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTIES No.1&3 : Exparte
FOR THE OPP. PARTY No.2 : Shri Nem Kumar, Advocate
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Sunil Kumar, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased LYF -Wind mobile from OP No.3 for an amount of Rs.6000/- vide invoice number 1908 dated 10.08.2016 under guarantee of one year. After some days of its purchase, the mobile phone started giving problem of auto-restart and hanging for which complainant approached OP no.2 authorized service centre of the company on 19.05.2017 who kept the mobile set and issued job card to the complainant. The complainant visited the OP no.2 and collected the mobile set. The Op no.2 refused to repair the mobile set rather they have written in the job card " not agreed to consumer for repairing the set". The complainant again visited the OP no.2 who told that it cannot be repaired and there is manufacturing defect and return the same without repair. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed to replace the mobile set with new one of same model or in the alternative to refund Rs.6000/- alongwith interest @12% per annum from 10.08.2016 till realization,
ii) OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment,
iii) OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OPs did not appear and as such they were proceeded exparte on 18.08.2017. When the complainant had tendered documents and closed evidence, Shri Nem Kumar Advocate appeared for the OP no.2 moved an application for setting aside exparte order dated 18.08.2017 against the OP no.2 and the application was dismissed on 18.09.2017 but the Op no.2 was allowed to join the proceedings from that date.
3. The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed evidence. The Op no.2 has not tendered any documentary evidence.
4. From the perusal of the entire documentary evidence produced by the complainant and hearing the arguments, we find that the complainant purchased LYF -Wind mobile set from OP No.3 for an amount of Rs.6000/- which is evident from invoice number 1908 dated 10.08.2016 Ex.C-4. The complainant's case is that after some days of its purchase, the mobile phone started giving problem of auto-restart and hanging for which complainant approached OP no.2 i.e. authorized service centre of the company on 19.05.2017 who kept the mobile set and issued job card to the complainant which is Ex.C-5 on record. The complainant has further stated that he visited the OP no.2 and collected the mobile set but the Op no.2 refused to repair the mobile set rather they wrote in the job card " handset returned to customer, customer not agreed to repair". Learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that the complainant again visited the OP no.2 who told that it cannot be repaired and there is manufacturing defect so same is returned without repair.
5. The complainant has produced on record report of an expert namely Sourav Goyal proprietor of Saurav Communications Gaushala Road, Sangrur which is Ex.C-3 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that after through checking and using the mobile set one day and as per my knowledge he found that the mobile set is not in working condition due to some manufacturing defect in the mobile set and said problem is not curable one. Surprisingly, from the perusal of said report, we find that expert has not mentioned in it what is the manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question and how it is not repairable. Hence, we feel that the complainant has failed to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question.
6. For the reasons recorded above, we partly allow the complaint and direct the OPs to repair the mobile set of the complainant immediately failing which the OPs are liable to refund the cost of the mobile set in question i.e. Rs.6,000/- to the complainant. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.2000/- on account of mental pain, agony harassment and litigation expenses.
7. This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course. Announced
September 20, 2017
(Vinod Kumar Gulati) ( Sarita Garg) (Sukhpal Singh Gill)
Member Member President
