BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.469 of 2017
Date of Instt. 07.12.22017
Date of Decision: 28.03.2018
Vishal Singh aged 21 years S/o Mohinder Singh R/o Village Lucky, PO Badui, Tehsil Nurpur, Distt. Kangra (H.P.)-176201.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Mobile House, HO Chadha Mobile House Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Off- Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar through its Manager, owner, proprietor, partner, director.
2. Vision Way Communication, Auth. Service Centre of Motorola & Lenovo, Ground Floor, Jabble Tower, Backside Grand Mall, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar (email st Floor, Nirmal Complex, Near Namdev Chowk, Jalandhr City.
3. Motorola (aLenovo Company), 12th Floor, Tower D, DLF Cyber Green, DLF Phase-III, U-6 Road, Cyber City, Sec, Gurugram- 122002, through its Manager, owner, proprietor, partner, director, Managing Director.
..….…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Sh. Rajat Chopra, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
Opposite Parties exparte.
Order
Harvimal Dogra (Member)
1. This complaint is presented by the complainant Vishal Singh under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, wherein alleged that the complainant has purchased a Motorola handset bearing Model No.MOTOE4 with the registered IMEI No.355637084247972, vide Invoice No.T24247 dated 01.12.2017 amounting to Rs.8600/- from OP No.1 and the OP No.1 assured that the handset is very good handset, which is having a local service centre and provides very good after sales services. The above said product is having the complete warranty of one year. The OP No.3 is the company/manufacturer of the product, sold by the OP No.1. That on the first day, when the complainant opened the handset at his house, the complainant was shocked to see that the handset is not working. In the evening of 02.12.2017, the complainant approached to the dealer and narrated that he has purchased the above said handset from the OP No.1, which was of Rs.8600/-, but the handset is not working. OP No.1 checked the handset and said that the handset is dead, which will be replaced by the service centre. The complainant approached the OP No.2, which is a service centre and OP No.2 also checked the handset and stated that the handset is dead and the complainant can refund the amount from the dealer i.e. OP No.1. On this statement, the complainant again approached to the OP No.1 and OP No.1 again stated that it is only OP No.2, which will provide the after sale service regarding the repair or refund of the handset. Both the OP No.1 and 2 are trying to regal out of their liabilities and not providing any fruitful solution to the complainant. OP No.2 demanded some documents from the complainant for the refund of the invoice amount as the handset is dead. The OP No.2 assured that the money will be refunded within 24 hours. After 24 hours, the complainant approached to OP No.2 for the refund, but OP No.2 flatly refused for the refund of the handset and said that it will take a month or two for the refund of the handset amount. The mobile set is still within the warranty period and it is still lying with the service station along with all the accessories and even after the payment of the handset, the complainant is not using the same and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be allowed and OPs be directed to refund the payment of the Invoice amount i.e. Rs.8600/- with interest @ 12% per annum and Rs.50,000/- as special damages for facing harassment, mental stress, strain, tension and agony and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service, the OPs did not come present and ultimately, the OPs were proceeded against exparte.
3. In order to prove his exparte claim, complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also examined the entire material on the record and have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us by the counsel for the complainant.
5. The issue for the consideration in the present case is whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The main contention of the complainant is that he purchased a Motorola handset amounting to Rs.8600/- from the OP No.1, Invoice Bill of the same is Ex.C-1. On opening the handset, the complainant found that it was not working, he went to OP No.1, who inspected the whole mobile and stated that the mobile handset is dead. The complainant was asked to go to the OP No.2 i.e. Service Centre, which will replace or refund the handset. The OP No.2 inspected the handset and stated that it is dead. The Job Sheet Ex.C-2 also stated that the mobile handset is dead. The complainant is running from pillar to post, but the mobile phone is neither replaced nor the amount is refunded and the mobile in question is still in the custody of OP No.2, which shows the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The OPs have mislead the complainant and did not give proper services to him and he suffered in the hands of OPs every time. The OPs did not bother to solve the problem of the complainant and made lame excuses on one pretext or the other. Moreover, despite service OPs have failed to come forward and the evidence led by the complainant has remained un-rebutted and un-challenged for the obvious reasons as stated above.
6. In view of the above observations and findings, we are of the considered view that the mobile handset in question is dead as stated by the OP No.1 and OP No.2, there is no doubt that the mobile is having a manufacturing defect and the only way sought out is to allow the complaint and to refund the money to the complainant. So, the OPs are directed to return the consideration money of Rs.8600/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint, till realization and further OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
7. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
28.03.2018 Member President
