The present case arises over a complaint filed by one Smt. Anju Agarwal, W/o Sri Sanjay Agarwal against the Managing Director, Lava International Ltd. and the Manager, Infotel Services, praying for a direction upon the OPs to replace the mobile handset/refund the amount thereof along with compensation.
In short, case of the Complainant, is that she purchased one mobile handset and the same was delivered to her vide Order dated 14-08-2015. Allegedly, within 10 days of its use, the handset developed some problem prompting the Complainant to take it to the OP No. 2 for doing necessary repairing. It is further stated that the said service centre attributed it to software problem and after keeping it for 10 days, the same was returned to the Complainant. It is alleged that, despite such repairing, there was no improvement to the situation. So, the Complainant again visited the OP No. 2 service centre on 06-10-2015. It is stated that on 14-10-2015, she got a call from the OP No. 2 asking her to collect the handset. When she went there to collect it, to her utter surprise, she found that the problem was not at all solved and so the service centre kept it for sending the same to the head office for repairing and from 06-10-2015, the handset is lying with the OP No. 2. Thereafter, the Complainant made repeated correspondences with the OPs, but to no avail. Hence, this case.
On notice, OP No. 1 appeared and contested the case by filing WV. Denying all the material allegations of the complaint, it is stated by this OP that there was no problem with the handset, but it was purely a network problem over which this OP has got no control. This OP, thus, prayed for dismissal of the case.
Point for consideration is whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for by her.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed one Rejoinder against the WV of the OP No. 1. She also filed Affidavit-of-Evidence and answered to the questionnaire put forth by the OP No. 1 under affidavit. OP No. 1 also filed evidence in support of its contention stated in the WV. Subsequently, both sides filed BNA.
It appears from the documents on record that the OP No. 1 has attributed the problem to the network of the telecom service provider and vehemently denied any inherent defect with the handset. In this regard, it is stated by the Complainant that the said mobile set started displaying ‘no network’ on its screen even in places where there was full network coverage and in some cases, even when the handset was showing full network on its screen, she encountered the menace of abrupt call drop. It is further stated by the Complainant that when she put the said SIM into another handset, she found no difficulty in conversing with others. Further case of the Complainant is that even replacement of earlier SIM did not have any salutary effect to the overall performance of the mobile handset in question.
Although copies of some correspondences made from the side of the OP No. 1 have been filed by the Complainant, it is noteworthy that, nowhere in the said mails the OP No. 1 attributed the problem to network. It appears, taking a thread from the nature of problem as mentioned by the Complainant in her petition of complaint, the OP No. 1 has sought to shrug off its responsibility by squarely passing the buck on “network problem” on the part of the telecom service provider.
In the light of defense advanced from the side of the OP No. 1, let us assume for the sake of argument that there was indeed some network problem and the handset is not suffering from any inherent manufacturing defect. However, it betrays our conviction as to why no endeavour was at all made from the side of the OP No. 2 to satisfy the efficacy of the handset in question by putting any SIM card of another telecom service provider of its choice. In this way, the OP No. 2 could have easily called the bluff of the Complainant, if at all she was wrong. Further, if it was indeed a network problem, then one wonders, why did the OP No. 2 keep the handset with it instead of returning the same to the Complainant instantaneously. In fact, we find that the OP No. 1 has not banked upon any expert opinion to support its contention. It requires no emphasis that tall claim is not suffice to prove anything. In case the handset is indeed not suffering from any latent defect, insofar as the handset is still lying with the OP No. 1, OPs could have easily cleared the dust by adducing expert evidence in this regard. For the reasons best known to it, OPs refrained from treading such path.
Clearly, the OPs are totally clueless about the exact nature of problem with the handset. Accordingly, we are of opinion that ends of justice would be met if a direction is given to the OPs to return the price of the mobile handset to the Complainant together with some compensation.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
that CC/25/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP No. 1 and ex parte against the OP No. 2. OPs are jointly and severally directed to refund the cost of the handset amounting to Rs. 4,999/- to the Complainant along with compensation for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- within two months of this order.
