Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/188/2015

Manish s/o Sh.Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Kamal Gift Gallery - Opp.Party(s)

M.L.Bansal

20 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 188 of 2015.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 01.06.2015.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 20.09.2016.

Manish aged about 40 years son of Sh. Suresh Kumar Bansal, resident of 116, Sector-18, HUDA, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                                              …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. M/s Kamal Gift Gallery, situated at Near Police Station Buria Gate, Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Prop.
2. M/s Grover Computers & Electronics (service Care Center of Xolo) situated at SC-103, Shivaji  Park, Nehru Park, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar through its Prop.
3. Xolo Mobile, Head Office:- A-56, Sector-64, Noida-201301, Utter Pradesh through its authorized person.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Mohan LalBansal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

            Respondent No.1 already ex-parte.

              Sh. Sumit Gupta, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.2 & 3.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant  Manishhas filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 8500/- alongwith interest and further directed to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a mobile set XOLO Opus 3 having IMEI 911404900320203 vide cash receipt No. 1509 dated 03.01.2015 for a sum of Rs. 8500/-(Annexure C-1) from the OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.3 whose service centre is OP No.2.From the very beginning the mobile set was not working properly and there was a line on the display, some time blue light blinking continuously and touch problem as per work order No. 310001094340 of job sheet dated 19.01.2015, further as per job sheet dated 10.02.2015 vide serial No.1378  the same problem in mobile as not working, slow processing, hanging, dialing problem but further again the mobile started showing some problem i.e. calling sensor problem, internet not connected, roaming facility not working, range problem in WCDMA SIM, Hang and slow processing as per workorder  No. 310001198326 dated 04.03.2015 but once again the said mobile started creating problem and complainant become fed up and again went to care taking and told that the mobile is not working in proper conditions i.e. display blank after some time, roaming service not activated, network problem, hang and slow process as per work order No. 310001265975 dated 03.04.2015. Complainant immediately rushed to OP No.1 and even called to OP No.3 but both of them did not pay any heed to the problem of complainant rather  they asked to visit the service centre of company i.e. OP no.2.  On the assurance of OPs No.1 & 3, the complainant visited so many times with the OP No.2 but all in vain and the main fact is that the mobile set is yet with the Op No.2. Thus, the complainant has suffered mental tension, agony, harassment etc. for which the OPs are liable.  Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement separately. OP No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable under the Act qua the Op No.1 as there is no deficiency or negligence in ser vice on the part of OP No.1. The OP No.1 is only dealer for the sale of Xolo mobile Phones and after sale service are to be provided by the service centre i.e. Op No.2. On merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     Ops No.2 & 3 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; the present complaint filed by the complainant without any technical report; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts; complainant has got no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint; complainant has got no cause of action against the Ops. The XOLO Mobile is the product of LAVA International and is a well reputed company and engaged in the business of best quality mobile phones alongwith other electronics products throughout India and the company has established a large number of service centres throughout India in order to provide good and satisfactory after sale services to its customers. The complainant in regards to his complaint regarding the alleged handset has approached the service centre of the company on 27.04.2015 and the engineer of the company checked the unit and found that there was a minor problem and the same will be rectified by a simple software update and in concern to the above software of alleged mobile has been updated but the complainant never came back to pick his unit and the Op contacted the complainant many times but he did not turn up to collect his unit and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of Bill No.1509 dated 03.01.2015 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of job sheet dated 19.01.2015 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of job sheet dated 10.02.2015 as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of job sheet dated 04.03.2015 as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of job sheet dated 03.04.2015 as Annexure c-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, OP No.1 failed to adduce any evidence, hence its evidence was closed by court order dated 08.08.2016 whereas counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Amit Kumar C/o M/s Lava International Pvt. Ltd. as Annexure RW/A and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops No.2 & 3.    

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

8.                     It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone on 03.012.105 vide Bill  No. 1509 for a sum of Rs. 8500/- from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.3 whose service centre is OP No.2. The only plea of the complainant is that the mobile phone in question is defective from the very beginning and defects could not be rectified by the OPs despite various efforts and the same is lying with the Ops No.2 & 3.

9.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Ops No.2 & 3 vehemently argued that all the allegations have been falsely leveled, in fact, neither the mobile phone in question was having any manufacturing defect nor any complaint has ever been lodged by the complainant with OP No.2. Only on 27.04.2015, complainant visited the authorized service centre of the company with complaint of minor problem and the same has been rectified after updated the software but the complainant did not come back to pick up his unit. Except this one, no other complaint has ever been lodged by the complainant. 

 10                   The plea taken by the Ops in the written statement as well as in the affidavit Annexure RW/A that the mobile phone was having only minor problem is not tenable whereas from the perusal of Annexure C-2 to C-4 (Job sheets/ service requests), it is proved that there were problems of “ Line on display, some time blue light blinking continuously, touch problem , slow processing problem, hanging problem, dialing problem, calling sensor problem, internet not connected, roaming facility not working, range problem etc. “ and the OPs N.2 & 3 failed to rectify the defects in the mobile in question which forced the complainant to file the present complaint before the Forum to redress his grievances.

 11.                  The aim of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide better and all round Protection to the consumers and this is the only law which directly pertains to market place and seeks to redress complaints arisen from it and it also provides effective safeguards to the consumers against different type of exploitation such as defective goods, unsatisfactory or deficient service and unfair trade practice. Moreover, this Forum feels that these days in the fast life style of the society, mobile set has become part and partial of the life of every person and due to huge demand of it, the companies are attracting consumers by adopting the different models of advertisement but at the same time after selling the same oftenly customers as well as consumers face a lot of problem even after paying the full cost of the same. Beneficiary companies taking huge amount in shape of profit, are duty bound to provide proper services till last satisfaction of the consumer. 

12.                   In view of the facts narrated above, we are of the confirmed view that the complainant might have suffered some hardship due to the defects in the mobile in question which is evident from the job card (Annexure C-2 to C-5) and the same is lying with the OPs No.2 & 3 as is admitted in their written statement in para No.8 of preliminary objections. So, in these circumstances noted above, we have no option except to partly allow the present complaint and thus we direct the OPs No.2 & 3 to comply with the following directions within 30 days from the communication of this order.

1. To refund the cost of mobile set in question i.e. Rs. 8,500/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days.
2. To pay a sum of Rs. 3000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.

13.                   The aforesaid directions must be complied with by the OPs No.2 & 3 within the stipulated period otherwise all the aforesaid awarded amounts shall fetch further simple interest @ 7% per annum for the period of default. The complaint is decided accordingly in the above terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.20.09.2016.

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                        MEMBER