BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.176 of 2016

Date of Instt. 18.04.2016

Date of Decision: 29.11.2017

Tajinder Singh S/o Sh. Narinder Singh R/o H.No. N.A. 209, Kishanpura, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Bunty Mobile World (Authorized Service Centre of LAVA) Shop No.29, Anand Market, Backside Shimla Palace, Partap Bagh, Jalandhar, through its Manager.

2. Mobile House H.O:- Chadha Mobile House Pvt. Ltd. Regd. Off Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar.

3. LAVA International Ltd. A-56, Sector-64, Noida-201301 (U.P.), Through Its Managing Director.

….… Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. Robin Budhiraja, Adv Counsel for the complainant.

OP No.1 and 2 exparte.

Sh. Aditya Jain, Adv Counsel for the OP No.3.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant has purchased one mobile handset model No.LAVA IRIS X8 on 02.08.2015, vide invoice No.22557 from OP No.2, for Rs.8000/-. The complainant has faced problem regarding the handset after 6 months from the date of purchase i.e. hang and not charging, which results in switched off, while during calling and without calling. The complainant approached OP No.1 on 20.02.2016 and OP No.1 wrongly mentioned in the job sheet that the mobile is out of warranty because it got repaired from outside. The complainant never repaired this handset from outside but firstly approached OP No.1 on 20.02.2016. The complainant insisted OP No.1 that he never got opened this handset from outsider, then OP No.1 asked orally to complainant that he discussed this matter with the head office of the company i.e. OP No.3 and assured to solve the problem of handset under warranty. Then OP No.1 demanded 15 days time for this and taken the handset in his custody. When complainant again visited to the office of OP No.1 in the month of march to get back his handset, then OP No.1 surprised complainant with demand of Rs.5000/- for repair charges without any reason moreover argued and insulted the complainant. Then the complainant has sent a legal notice on 07.04.2016 to the OPs, but all in vain and as such, there is a negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, which give arise to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the handset with a new one or refund the price of the mobile and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs but despite service, OP No.1 and 2 did not come present and ultimately they were proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.3 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and further averred that the present complaint filed by the complainant without any technical report is not maintainable and further averred that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts. It is further averred that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is further submitted that the OP No.2 was and is still ready to repair the mobile set of the complainant but on charges basis because the mobile is not within a warranty period, whereas the complainant is not ready to make the payment of the repair charges and despite repeated call of the OP, the complainant is not ready to get the delivery of the said mobile rather filed the instant false complaint. On merits, the factum in regard to purchase of the mobile set by the complainant is admitted and further submitted that the mobile phone worked for six months smoothly, which clearly established that there is no manufacturing problem in the mobile handset but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

3. In order to establish the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.

4. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP3/A alongwith document Ex.OP3/1 i.e. Warranty Certificate and closed the evidence of OP No.3.

5. We bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and also scanned the case file very carefully.

6. From the submissions of both the counsel for the parties, it has become clear that the factum in regard to purchase of mobile handset by the complainant from the OP No.2 is not in dispute rather these factum have been admitted by the manufacturing company i.e. OP No.3 in its written reply and moreover, the complainant has also brought on the file photostat copy of the invoice Ex.C1. Now question remains whether the mobile phone is within warranty or not, for that purpose, it is admitted fact that the warranty period of the mobile phone in generally is one year and admittedly, the mobile was purchased on 02.08.2015, it means the warranty is upto 01.08.2016 and as per version of the complainant, problem occurred to the mobile set on 20.02.2016 and accordingly, he submitted the mobile handset to the service centre, who issued a job sheet Ex.C2, wherein date is 20.02.2016. So, from the date, put on the job sheet, itself established that the mobile phone has got some problem within one year from the date of purchase, no doubt in the job sheet, the OP has categorically mentioned that it is out of warranty, the reason for out of warranty is mentioned in the written reply filed by OP No.3 that the mobile is liquid logged and it was told to the complainant that unit is barred by warranty due to water logged, so repair if any, would be on chargeable basis and further in the job sheet, the reason is mentioned regarding out of warranty is that the set was repaired from outside, but in order to establish that the mobile phone is water logged or got repaired from outside is to be proved only by the engineer/mechanic, who checked the mobile phone set, but for the best known reason, the OP has not examined the said engineer/mechanic, who thoroughly checked the mobile set of the complainant, if there is no such type of the evidence brought on the file by the OP, then the version/plea taken by the OP No.3 in written reply is not proved rather the version of the complainant that his mobile phone is having major problem regarding hanging and not charging, which results in switched off during the call. So, the defect mentioned by the complainant seems to be a manufacturing defect, if the same is easily curable, then the OP might have repaired the same and delivered back handset to the complainant immediately, but for the best known reason the OP has retained the mobile phone still today. So, under these circumstances, we find that the complainant is able to establish the facts as alleged in the complaint for which he is entitled to get the relief.

7. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and all the OPs are directed to replace the old handset of the complainant with the new one and further OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.7000/- to the complainant for mental harassment and also directed to pay Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. The above payment be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order, failing which the OPs will be liable to pay interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization. The compliance in regard to replace of the mobile handset be also made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

8. 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 Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

29.11.2017 Member President