Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 424.
Instituted on : 11.09.2015.
Decided on : 19.07.2017.
Monu s/o Sh. Ram Chander R/o H.No.1871/9 Prem Nagar Rohtak R/o Village Bhagwati pur Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Sach Telemart, Opp. Liberty Cinema, Delhi Road, Rohtak 124001.
- M/s Shri Hari Computer Solutions, SCO-189, HUDA Complex, Rohtak-124001.
- Micromax Informatics Ltd., 21/14 A, Phase-11, Naraina Industrial area, Delhi-110028.
- Micromax Informatics Ltd. 90 B, Sector-18 Gurgaon, Haryana-122015, India.
……….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: Sh.Dharmender Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 & 2 exparte.
Sh. Sandeep Kaushik Advocate for opposite party no.3 & 4.
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 set from the opposite party No.1 on dated 06.07.2015 for a sum of Rs.8700/-. It is averred that from the very beginning i.e. after 20 days of purchase, it started creating problems like, heating, auto white display, non display of numbers etc. The complainant had approached the opposite party No.2 on dated 11.08.2015 and opposite party had deposited the mobile set on the plea to send the same to the company and also issued a job sheet. But till today alleged mobile set has not been returned back to the complainant and the complainant is facing financial loss due to not doing of recharge work from his mobile. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that 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 party no.1 & 2 despite service and as such opposite party no.1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.10.2015 of this Forum. However opposite party no.3 & 4 appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that he had purchased the handset on 06.07.2015 and approached the service center on 11.08.2015 and the service centre repaired the handset and called up several times to the complainant to collect the handset but the complainant never turned up to collect the handset. The handset is ready with authorized service center and the complainant can collect the same after producing necessary documents such as original job card issued to him. It is averred that answering opposite party never denied to provide its after sale services as per the terms of warranty. Hence the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. As such it is prayed the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.3 & 4 made a statement that reply already filed on their behalf be read in evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that as per bill Ex.C1 dated 06.07.2015, complainant had purchased the mobile set for a sum of Rs.8700/-. It is also not disputed that as per job sheet Ex.C2 dated 11.08.2015, there was problem of Display auto white. On the other hand contention of ld. Counsel for opposite party no.3 & 4 is that the handset in question was repaired by the service centre of opposite party and complainant was requested to collect the set but the complainant had not collected the same from the opposite parties.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the complainant had purchased the handset on 06.07.2015 and as per job sheet Ex.C2 the defect appeared on 11.08.2015 i.e. only after 1(one) month and the complainant had deposited the handset with the opposite party no.2 but the same has not been returned to the complainant till date after repair which shows that there is some manufacturing defect in the mobile set. However opposite party has not placed on record any document to prove that the handset in question was repaired by them and any letter was written to the complainant to collect his handset. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law cited in 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”, as per II (2009) CPJ 240 titled as Jagdish Prasad Khandelwal vs. Partap Chandra Behera & Ors., Hon’ble Orissa State Commission, Cuttak has held that: “Dealer-Liability-Manufacturing defect-dealer requested manufacturer to replace effective goods having sufficient discharged his responsibility, dealer, cannot be made liable for deficiency in service order against dealer set aside in appeal-manufacturer alone held liable to replace defective goods or to refund price thereof”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the complainant is entitled for the refund of price of mobile set from the opposite party no.3 & 4 i.e. manufacturer.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed as per the statement made by ld. Counsel for the complainant on dated 12.07.2017 the mobile set in question is already in the possession of service center i.e. opposite party No.2. As such opposite party no.3 & 4 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.8700/-(Rupees eight thousand seven hundred only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.11.09.2015 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
19.07.2017.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
....................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
……………………………..
Ved Pal, Member
