Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 524.
Instituted on : 19.11.2015.
Decided on : 12.05.2016.
Raj Kumar Dahiya s/o Sh. Mehar Singh R/o H.No.1377 Prem Nagar, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Krishna Mobile Ghar, Chhotu Ram Chowk, Civil Road, Rohtak through its Proprietor.
- Balaji Communication, SCF, 187-188 New HUDA Complex, Rohtak through its Proprietor.
- Samsung Mobile phones, Head office Sector-31, Gurgaon through its Director.
……….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: Complainant in person.
Oppsoite party no.1 exparte.
Sh.Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party No.2 & 3.
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 vide bill no.8615 dated 13.12.2014 for an amount of Rs.25200/-. It is averred that opposite party no.2 is the authorized service centre and opposite party no.3 is the manufacturer of mobile phone. It is averred that in the month of September 2015 the above said mobile phone started creating problem and the said mobile phone’s pattern was locked due to software problem. It is averred that complainant approached the opposite party on 12.09.2015 and deposited his mobile for repairing and the same was returned to complainant after few days but after some days again the said mobile phone started creating problem and network was dropped and was not charged. Complainant again approached the opposite party no.2 on 24.10.2015 but after repairing, it started giving problem of LCD Screen started flickring, due to which the complainant is unable to see anything on the screen and the complainant deposited the set with the opposite party on 06.11.2015 but the same is still not working properly. It is averred that the defects in the mobile set appeared during the warranty period but the same could not be removed despite repeated repairs by the service center. It is averred that complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the set but they refused to do the same. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the cost of mobile set alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite party no.1 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.12.2015 of this Forum. However opposite party no.2 & 3 appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that the complainant approached the opposite party no.2 in the month of September 2015 which means that the unit was working properly upto September 2015 and no problem was found and only software was upgraded. It is averred that company gives one year warranty on the unit warranty means in case of any problem with the unit the unit will be repaired or its part will be replaced as per company policy. On merits it is submitted that all the contents of the complaint are wrong and denied and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite parties. As such dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party no.2 & 3 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and has closed his 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 the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 13.12.2014 for a sum of Rs.25200/- as is proved from the bill Ex.C1 and as per job sheet Ex.C2 dated 12.09.2015 the problem in the handset were regarding pattern lock, as per job sheet Ex.C3 dated 24.10.2015 the problem was of ‘Network drop no charging’, as per Ex.C4 dated 06.11.2015 ‘LCD Flikring’. It is observed that the defects in the alleged mobile set appeared within warranty period and the same could not be rectified by the opposite party no.2 i.e. service centre despite repeated repairs.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per the job sheets Ex.C2 to Ex.C4, the problems in the handset appeared repeatedly during warranty period but the same could not be repaired during warranty period. On the other hand contention of opposite party no.2 & 3 is that there was no problem in the handset in question but to prove its contention, no expert report has been placed on record by the opposite parties. In this regard reliance has been placed 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 it 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”. In view of the aforesaid law which is applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed it is a fit case where the refund of price is justified.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set. As such it is directed opposite party No.3 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set i.e Rs.25200/-(Rupees twenty five thousand two hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 19.11.2015 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However the complainant is directed to handover the set in question to the opposite parties. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
12.05.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
