Haryana

Panchkula

CC/233/2015

DALWARA SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAV ENTERPRISES. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

02 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	233 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	21.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	02.03.2016

                                                                                            

Sh.Dalwara Singh s/o Sh.Dharam Singh, R/o VPO Kandaiwala, Tehsil and District Panchkula.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Manav Enterprises, SCO No.45, Cabin No.219, Sector-11, Panchkula.

2.       Lava International Ltd., A-56, Sector 64, Noida-201301, UP, India.

3.       Mahesh Electronics, Trilokpur Chowk, Raipur Rani, Panchkula.

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person.

              Mr.Vishal Madan, Adv., for the OPs No.1 and 2.

OP No.3 already ex-parte. 

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a Lava Pixel VI, white Model PIXEL VI, IMEI No.911452551345441 vide invoice No.3664 (Annexure C-1) dated 14.08.2015 from Op No.3 for a sum of Rs.11,500/-. But thereafter, the mobile phone started giving problem as out of order, switched off, was not catching WI-FI signals, automatically went on silent mode and heating problem. On 12.09.2015, the complainant approached the Op No.1 and after checking, the concerned employee told that there was software problem and the same would be sorted out in two days. After passing two days i.e. on 14.09.2015, the complainant visited Op No.1 to collect his mobile and the concerned employee told that there was battery problem and the same would be changed by the Company within week. After one week, the complainant visited Op No.1 to collect his mobile then the employee told the complainant that there was motherboard problem and the complainant could get his mobile within a week. After some days, the complainant was contacted telephonically by the Company that come and gets the mobile phone. The complainant visited the OP No.1 to get his mobile and the concerned employee told that in record, the mobile has been shown OK but actually the problem was not sorted out yet. As and when the problem would be sorted out, the complainant would be informed. The complainant requested to replace the mobile but they refused to do the same. This act and conduct on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
2. In reply, the Ops No.1 and 2 filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that there was no defect in the mobile set. It is submitted that the Op No.2 is a company in India engaged in business of manufacturing mobiles and its sales. It is submitted that on a single time thousands of mobiles are manufactured and if there is any alleged manufacturing defect during manufacturing of the same then the same would occur in the entire lot. It is submitted that till date, the Ops No.1 and 2 did not receive a single complaint from any of its customer who were using the same model manufactured by the Op No.2 of the same lot. It is submitted that on 22.09.2015, the complainant approached the service centre with some problem in mobile which was checked by the engineer of the company and was having no hardware problem so only the software was required to be updated and the complainant was asked that the mobile would be delivered by the same in the evening but the complainant wanted the refund. It is submitted that the complainant was asked that the company provided one year warranty and warranty meant repairs not replacement and though the warranty is subject to some condition that in case the mobile is liquid/water logged, serial number missing, physically damaged, mishandling and tampering but the complainant did not come forward to pick his mobile. It is submitted that the Ops No.1 and 2 requested the complainant many times telephonically to collect the mobile as it was ok but the complainant denied for the same. It is submitted that the Ops No.1 and 2 are ready to deliver the repaired mobile as per company policy. It is submitted that the Op No.2 is a renowed company in Electronic Products and Commodities and is manufacturing Electronic products for the past several years. It is submitted that the technology used by the company in manufacturing the World Class Electronic Products is highly sophisticated. It is submitted that the complaint was filed without any expert opinion which would prove that the mobile was not working properly so there was no manufacturing defect. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops No.1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Notice was issued to the Op No.3 through registered post but none has appeared on behalf of the OP No.3. It is deemed to be served and the Op No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 04.01.2016.
4. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R1/A and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant appearing in person and learned counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
6. The sale of Lava Pixel VI, white Model PIXEL VI, bearing IMEI No.911452551345441 vide invoice No.3664 dated 14.08.2015 from the Op No.3 for a sum of Rs.11,500/- with a warranty of one year (Annexure C-1) is admitted.
7. The main grouse of the complainant is that the mobile phone was not getting the WI-FI signals and automatically went on silent mode & heating problem. The complainant contacted the Op No.1 to resolve the problem who issued job sheet dated 22.09.2015 (Annexure C-2) with remarks in the column of problem description symptom reported “dead” and told that the same would be sorted out in two days. After passing two days i.e. on 14.09.2015, the complainant visited the Op No.1 to collect his mobile who told that there was battery problem and the same was changed by the Company within week. After one week, the employee of OP No.1 told that there was motherboard problem and the complainant could get his mobile within a week. After some days, the complainant was told that in record, the mobile has shown OK but actually the problem was not sorted out yet. As and when the problem would be sorted out, the complainant would be informed. The complainant requested to replace the mobile but they refused for the same.
8. In the present complaint, the complainant has rightly prayed for refund of the amount paid towards the cost of hand set as he was deprived of its usage inspite of spending such a handsome amount for the purchase of the hand set. The demand of the complainant for the refund of the price value of the hand set is due to the manufacturing defect in the hand set and proves from product quality as well as poor services.
9. After having considered the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the non-providing of proper service and non-rectification of problem in the hand set clearly proves the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
10. In the totality of circumstances of the case, we have no reservation in coming to the conclusion that there was deficiency on the part of Ops in providing the services and we so view accordingly.
11. Resultantly, we find merit in the complaint, therefore, the same is allowed accordingly. The Ops, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-
    1. To refund Rs.11,500/- being the cost of the mobile hand set in question to the complainant alongiwth interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 14.08.2015 till realization.
    2. To make the payment of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony, physical harassment and cost of litigation.
12. This order be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

02.03.2016      S.P.ATTRI           ANITA KAPOOR            DHARAM PAL

                        MEMBER         MEMBER                       PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                          

                                                     DHARAM PAL 

                                                     PRESIDENT