Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 273.
Instituted on : 17.05.2016.
Decided on : 27.07.2016.
Sudhir s/o Gaje Singh, R/o Village Sundana, Distt. Rohtak Age-39 years, Mobile No.9017521258.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Madhavi Enterprises, Shop No.1348/49B, Chhotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak.
- Manager, Microsoft Mobile Service Centre, Address: 42E, Above Dena Bank 1st Floor, HUDA Complex, Rohtak.
- Manager Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd., SP Infocity Plot No.243, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1, Dundahera, Gurgaon-122016.
……….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: Complainant in person.
Opposite parties already exparte.
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 Microsoft Lumia-532 on dated 20.05.2015 from the opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.6200/-. It is averred that so many defects appeared in the alleged mobile e.g. Hanging, network and heating of battery and the complainant contacted the opposite party no.2 who formatted the mobile and returned the same to the complainant and no job sheet was given on the plea that he can contact the opposite party again for any problem. In this way complainant contacted the opposite party 4-5 times but no job sheet was given to him. It is averred that on 16.05.2016 again the same defect appeared and the opposite party refused to repair the same on the ground that the phone was out of warranty. It is averred that the defects in the phone appeared during warranty period but the same could not be removed by the opposite parties. It is averred that 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 parties and as such opposite parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.07.2016 of this Forum..
3. Complainant led evidence in support of his case and has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and has closed his evidence.
4. We have heard he complainant and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that as per invoice Ex.C1 dated 20.05.2015 the complainant had purchased the mobile set for a sum of Rs.6200/- from the opposite party no.1. It is also not disputed that the alleged handset was defective and as per document Ex.C2 dated there was some problem in the mobile set but the same has shown the mobile as out of warranty. In the alleged document the start date of warranty is 19.03.2015 and the end of warranty is 19.03.2016.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the mobile in question was purchased by the complainant on 20.05.2015 and the defect in the mobile set appeared within one year i.e. within warranty period. But as per document Ex.C2 the start date of warranty is shown as 19.03.2015. In this regard it is observed that when the mobile phone was purchased on 20.05.2015 then how the warranty period can start before the date of purchase. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the defects in the mobile set appeared 4-5 times and the same was repaired by the opposite party no.2 but no job sheet was given to the complainant and the mobile could not be repaired/replaced by the opposite parties during the warranty period. It is also on record that opposite parties 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. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in III(2008)CPJ 98 titled Pahnawa Boutique & Anr. Vs. Shaifi Verma whereby Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Complaint fully supported by affidavit-No basis to reject complainant’s version-O.P.failed to contest proceedings despite notice-Order of Forum allowing the exparte complaint upheld”, as per 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.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the complainant will hand over the mobile set in question with the opposite parties and in turn opposite party No.3 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set i.e Rs.6200/-(Rupees six thousand two hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 17.05.2016 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2500/-(Rupees two 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.
8. 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:
27.07.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
……………………………..
Komal Khanna, Member
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
