Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/308

Rajinderpal Thapar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ahuja Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

compl.in person

01 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 308 of 06.05.2015

Date of Decision            :   01.04.2016

Rajinder Pal Thapar s/o Sh.Tejpal Thapar r/o H.No.7091, St. No.8, Near Dada  Motors, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.M/s Ahuja Electronics Mata Rani Chowk, Opp. Sitla Mata Mandir Ludhiana through its authorized signatory.

2.M/s Shahi Communnication Center Shop No.5(583-L) Revolving Hotel Co.Ludhiana-141002 Contact No.9814028403 through its authorized signatory.

3.M/s Lava International Ltd., Importer : A-56 Sector 64 Noida-201301 U.P.Noida through its authorized signatory.

…Opposite parties

 

                             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS. VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :        In person             

For OPs                         :        Ex-parte

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.              Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) filed by complainant Sh.Rajinder Pal Thapar against Ops by claiming that he purchased mobile set model Xolo Q900T IMEI No.911361450065259 on 29.11.2014 from OP1 through bill No.R-24136. After one month of purchase, the said mobile set went out of order and that fact was brought to the notice of OPs several times by the complainant, but they kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant approached Op2, the service centre on 18.2.2015 and said service centre found fault of “set Auto on/off power keep not work”. The said mobile set was returned back after some time by OP2 to the complainant after minor repair, but even then the mobile set stopped working properly and problem of hang on continued. Complainant again approached OP2 on 09.03.2015, who after keeping the mobile for sometimes, returned back the same after few days, after doing minor repair. Complainant again approached OP2 by disclosing that problem of hang on still continued, but despite that Op2 did not care. The problem of hang on still continued and as such, by pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, compensation of Rs.30,000/- for mental and physical pain claimed. Op3 alleged to be the manufacturer.

2.                Op3 filed the written statement through counsel by pleading interalia as if complaint is not maintainable; complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; complainant has no locus standi; technical report along with complaint has not been filed; complainant has no cause of action and that Op3 is a renowned company manufacturing electronic products for the past several years and question of deficiency in service does not arise. It is claimed that OP3 manufactured thousands of mobile at a single occasion and if any manufacturing defect alleged, then the same bound to occurr in the entire lot. However,        despite that OP3 has not received a single complaint till date from the customers who are using the same model of the mobile manufactured by OP3 in the same lot. Complainant approached service centre on 9.3.2015 and thereafter, mobile set after repair was handed over to him on 14.03.2015. However, thereafter, complainant never approached  OP3,  but  has filed this complaint without submitting any expert report. Due solution was provided to the complainant on account of which, he is fully satisfied and thereafter, he put his signatures on the job sheet at the time of collecting the mobile set after repair. OP3 provides one year warranty, which includes repair and not for replacement. Copy of job sheet enclosed as Ex.R1. It is claimed that even as per decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, if any equipment or machinery can be repaired, then the same could not be ordered to be replaced. Each and every other averment of complaint denied by claiming that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP3.

3.                Op1 and OP2 did not appear despite sending notices and as such, they were proceeded against ex-parte.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and thereafter, his counsel closed the evidence.

5.                However, an application was filed by the complainant for directing OP2 to produce job sheet dated 29.11.2014 and bill No.R-24136. Reply to that application was not filed despite grant of due opportunities. Later on none turned up for OP3 and that is why Op3 was proceeded against ex-parte.

6.                Oral arguments of complainant were heard. Records gone through carefully.

7.                Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 are the job sheets of date 2.12.2014 showing as if mobile handset of the complainant developed problems of hang on, due to which, the mobile set continued to be auto on/off. So, certainly submissions of complainant has force that he approached Op2 for redressal of the problem of hang on of the mobile set on 2.12.2014, but the same could not be finally resolved. Even Op3 in the filed written statement admits that the complainant approached service centre on 9.3.2015 and thereafter,  due repair, the mobile set was handed over       to the complainant on 14.3.2015. So, problem in the mobile set faced by the complainant not once but more than once. Copy of purchase bill Ex.C3 produced to show as if mobile set was purchased from OP1 on 29.1.2014. So, defects in the mobile set started within 1 month from the date of purchase. As per terms and conditions of warranty, repair of the mobile set to be done within the warranty period. That has not been done and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

8.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that OPs will repair the hand set in question within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Compensation of Rs.2000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against OPs. Liability of OPs to pay awarded compensation and litigation expenses will be joint and several. Payment be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. 

9.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Vinod Bala)                                 (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:01.04.2016

Gobind Sharma.