DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT
Complaint No. : 225
Date of Institution: 14.07.2017
Date of Decision : 15.09.2017
Jaswinder Singh aged 41 years S/o Darshan Singh R/o Village Malooka, Tehsil and Distt. Bathinda.
...Complainant
Versus
- Mahluxmi Telecom, New Market, Near Ram Leela Ground, Jaitu through its Proprietor.
- Oppo Mobiles India, Corporate Office, Oppo House, Vatika Business Park, 2nd Floor, Sohana Road, Sector-49, Gurgaon, (Haryana).
....Opposite parties (Ops)
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President
Sh. Purshotam Singla, Member.
Present: Sh. Ashu Mittal, Advocate, Ld Counsel for complainant.
Ops Exparte.
(Ajit Aggarwal, President)
The Complainant filed the present complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops for manufacturing and selling defective mobile phone Oppo, model A57, Colour Gold, IMEI No.864622037923154 to the complainant and for granting compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/-and for deficiency in service and supply of inferior quality mobile phone and for causing unnecessary mental tension, pain, agony suffering etc along with cost of litigation.
2 Briefly stated facts of the complaint is that complainant purchased a mobile hand set fully detailed in the head note of the complaint from OP-1 which is manufactured by OP-2. The OPs assured the complainant that mobile handset is of high quality and the OPs gave guarantee of one year against any defect. From the very first day of the purchase of the mobile hand set, it is started giving problem. The mobile handset is emitting heat and the complainant approached the OP-1 who told the complainant that this is minor problem and will disappear within few days but it to surprise that after 10 days of its purchase the mobile set become bend itself and the complainant approached the OP-1 who told to the complainant to visit Care Centre of OP-2 at Faridkot. The complainant visited the Care Centre of OP-2 and employees of Care Centre after checking the mobile handset told the complainant that this problem would disappear automatically and mobile handset would be flat within few days but even after passing about one month, the problem remained persistent. The complainant approached the Care Centre and the OP-1 many times to remove the defect or to replace the mobile handset but to no effect. It is a manufacturing defect and only solution is to replace the same but OPs are not admitting their fault. In spite of repeated requests the defect of the mobile was neither removed nor was replaced. Defected mobile is not working which cause unnecessarily harassment to complainant. The act and conduct of the OPs is very much unfair and irresponsible, it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, due to this reason the complainant harassed unnecessarily, face loss of work and mental agony and complainant is entitled to receive compensation from OPs. The complainant prayed that the Ops may be directed to give a new mobile phone and compensation on account of unfair trade practice along with litigation expenses.
3 The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 18.07.2017, complaint was admitted. Notice along with copy of the complaint issued to OP-1 & 2 through registered post but despite the proper notice none has appeared on behalf of OPs. OPs are proceeded against exparte vide order dated 07.09.2017.
4. To prove his case the complainant in his exparte evidence tendered his duly sworn affidavit as Ex C-1 and document Ex C-2 and closed his exparte evidence.
5. As there is no rebuttal on behalf of the OPs, We have heard the arguments of complainant and also gone through the pleadings and evidence led by Complainant. The case of the complainant is that on 23.05.2017 he purchased a mobile hand set from OP-1 which is manufactured by OP-2. The OPs assured the complainant that hand set is of high quality and also gave warranty for one year on the said mobile phone. To prove it, the complainant produced copy of the bill Ex C-2. The grievance of the complainant is that from the very first day the above said mobile hand set is emitting heat and the complainant approached the OP-1. OP-1 told to complainant this is a minor problem and will disappear within few days but after about 10 days of its purchase the said mobile set become bend itself and on it the complainant approached to OP-1 who told to complainant to visit the Care Centre of OP-2. The employee of Care Centre after checking the said mobile set told to complainant that this problem will disappear within few days but this problem is remained persistent. He approached to Ops many times to remove the defect and replace the phone but no fruitful result came out. He argued that it is a manufacturing defect and the only solution is to replace the same. To prove his case he produced the mobile hand set in question before this Forum for inspection. The mobile set in question was inspected and it is found that the mobile set is bend which cannot be happened in normal condition and it is observed that it is only to manufacturing defect in the said mobile set. All these documents prove the case of the complainant. We are of the considered opinion that the Ops are negligent and irresponsible, they did not remove the defect from the mobile phone of the complainant for which they are duty bound as they gave one year warranty on the said mobile phone. All these acts of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
6. In the light of above discussion, the complaint is allowed against OP-2. The complaint against OP-1 is dismissed as he is only retailer. Any guarantee or warranty is given by manufacturer and there is no role of the Retailer in it. The OP-2 is directed to replace the mobile phone of the complainant in question with new one and same model and also directed to give fresh warranty of one year on new mobile set. The OP-2 is further ordered to pay Rs.6000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and inconvenience suffered by the complainant due to negligence of OPs. The OP-2 is also burdened to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. OP-2 is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 15.09.2017
Member President (Purshotam Singla) (Ajit Aggarwal)
