Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 628.
Instituted on : 18.11.2016.
Decided on : 30.07.2018.
Lekh Ram age 25 year s/o Sh. Roop Lal R/o village-Rithal Phogat, Teh. & Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Matharoo Mobile Care, Main Market, Kot Mangal Singh Chowk, Near Jeet Sweets, Ludhiana(Punjab) through its Proprietor.
- Shahi Communication Centre, Shop No.5, 583-L, 4x Revolving Restaurant Model Town, Ludhiana through its Proprietor(Lava Care Service Centre).
- M/s Shri Hari Computer Solutions Plot no.189 CUE HUDA Complex, Rohtak through its Proprietor(Lava Care Service Centre).
- LAVA International Ltd. A-56, Sector-64, Noida-201301(UP) Through its Managing Director.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Sanjay Kumar Advocate for complainant.
Sh.Kunal Juneja, counsel for OP No.4.
Opposite parties No.1 to 3 exparte.
ORDER
RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a mobile phone from the opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.5000/- on 17.02.2016 with one year warranty. That just after few days of purchase it started creating problems like touch screen and hanging problem and various other defects in his mobile. That he made so many complaints with OP No.2 on 22.02.2016, 18.03.2016, on 25.06.2016, 02.07.2016, 16.06.2016, 01.08.2016 and 04.08.2016, 06.09.2016, 19.09.2016. Thereafter the phone LCD and display stopped working and the opposite party No.3 demanded Rs.1150/- for repairing the same whereas the mobile was within warranty period. That complainant requested the OPs either to refund the price or to replace the same but to no effect. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to make the payment of Rs.5000/- alongwith interest besides compensation qua mental harassment etc. and cost of litigation as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to OP No.1 to 3 received back served but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 to 3. As such opposite party No.1 to 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.03.2017 of this Forum. Ld. counsel for OP no.4 has submitted that with regard to the complaints mentioned in the complaint, the service regarding the unit was provided as per satisfaction of complainant and the complainant after complete satisfaction took the delivery of unit. That on 24.10.2016 the mobile of the complainant was found physically damaged. Hence the same was not covered under warranty and the repair was on chargeable basis. But the complainant did not approve the same. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for OP No.4 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 and has closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 17.02.2016 and as per the complaints mentioned in the complaint w.e.f. 22.02.2016 to 19.09.2016 and admitted by OP No.4 in its reply, complainant made numerous complaints to get his mobile repaired but the same could not be repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant within warranty period. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 to 3 have not appeared before this Forum for the rebuttal against the pleadings of the complainant placed on the file and remained exparte in the present case. As such all the allegations leveled against the opposite parties regarding the defect in the mobile set stands proved. However contention of OP No.4 that mobile was physically damaged is not tenable without any cogent evidence. As the complainant has lost faith in the company and its product so it is better to refund the price of mobile phone.
6. Accordingly the complaint succeeds and it is directed opposite party No.4 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set i.e. to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 18.11.2016 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses and compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. Complainant is also directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite parties.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
30.07.2018.
................................................
Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President
..........................................
Ved Pal, Member.
