DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 182 of 5.5.2016
Decided on: 29.12.2016
Anil Kumar Wadhwa S/o Sh.Rajinder Kumar Wadhwa R/o # 869-A, Street No.8 Guru Nanak Nagar, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
- M/s Lava International Ltd. A-56 Sector 64, Noida-201301, UP India through its Managing Director.
- Customer Service Center Lava/Xolo Mobile World near Valmiki Mandir Bus Stand to Lahori Gate Road, Patiala 147001.
- Snapdeal.com246 1st floor, Okhla Industrial area Phase 3, Delhi-110020 through its Manager.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Anil Kumar, complainant in person.
Sh.J.P.Sharma,Adv.counsel for OPs No.1&2.
Complaint against Op no.3 is dismissed as withdrawn.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh.Anil Kumar Wadhwa has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To refund Rs.9999/-, the cost of the mobile set
- To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile set make Xolo Black Ix , on 17.11.2015, vide invoice No.SC4A72/15-16/43743 for a sum of Rs.9999/- from OP No.3 through internet. In this regard invoice was issued by OP No.1 through OP No.3. After few days of its purchased, it started giving problems while working. He contacted O.P. No.2 i.e. the authorized service centre of OP No.1 which kept his mobile set without issuing any job card and told him to receive back after one hour. It updated the software of the mobile set due to which all data and apps stored by him wiped out. After few days same problem again occurred in the mobile set. Again on 16.12.2015, he visited Op no.2, which again kept his mobile set and issued a job card to him and told to collect the same on the next day. On the next day, he received his mobile set with all data and apps wiped out but the problem was still there as it was. On 6.1.2016, he again visited OP no.2, who got the same deposited with it and told him that it will send the same to the company for repair and get the same back after 15-20 days and issued work order sheet No.510007258073 to him. After 20-25 days he got call from OP no.1 and visited OP no.2 to collect his mobile set, who ensured that the mobile set was now OK and there would be no problem in future. But despite repeated repairs done by OP No.2 it did not work properly, which shows that it is beyond repairs.
In the month of March,2016, he approached OP no.2 and requested to change the defective mobile set. At this 2-3 times it updated the software and ensured that there would be no problem in future but of no use. On 28.4.2016, he again visited OP no.2, who received the mobile set against work order No.510008508081 and told to get the same back after 15 days. Still the mobile set is with OP no.2 and could not repair the same. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for which he is suffering from mental agony and physical harassment.
3. On being put to notice, OPs no.1&2 appeared and filed their written version whereas the complaint against OP no.3 has been dismissed as withdrawn on 3.8.2016.
In the written version filed by OPs No.1&2, It is stated that the complainant approached the company on 23.11.2015 vide job sheet No.510006623865 and the engineer after checking the mobile set told the complainant that the unit should be replaced to which the complainant gave his consent. The company replaced the unit of the mobile set with new one. Again he approached the company on 6.1.2016 vide job sheet no.510007258073. The engineer of the company checked the unit of the mobile set properly and resolved the problem as reported by the complainant. Again he approached on 28.4.2016 vide job sheet No.510008508081. The engineer of the company checked the unit of the mobile set properly. After resolving the problem as reported by the complainant, the service centre contacted the complainant for the delivery of the unit but he refused to take the delivery. It is further stated that the company provides one year warranty on the unit warranty means in case of any problem with the unit, the same will be repaired or its part will be replaced as per company policy. Warranty means only repair not replacement. It is further stated that the OPs were and are always ready to deliver the unit which is lying in complete O.K. condition but the complainant is not ready to take the delivery of the unit. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C4 and closed the evidence.
On the contrary, the ld. counsel for OPs no.1&2 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA sworn affidavit of Ankit Aggarwal and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant in person, the ld. counsel for the O.Ps No.1&2 and have also gone through the record of the case including written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant, carefully.
6. From the copy of the retail invoice dated 17.11.2015,Ex.C1, it is evident that the complainant purchased the mobile phone for an amount of Rs.9999/-. From the copies of job sheets dated 16.12.2015, 06.01.2016 and 26.4.2016, respectively, Ex.C2 to Ex.C4, it is evident that there was a contacts problem in the mobile set in question. In the said job sheets, it is clearly mentioned that the mobile set in question was within warranty. As per the version of the complainant that even after repeated repairs, the defect in the mobile set in question could not be rectified by O.P No.2 and it is still lying with it. The stand of OP No.2 is that it had rectified the defects of the said mobile set and contacted the complainant to take the delivery of the said mobile set but he refused to take the same. But no document has been placed on record by OP No.2, whether complainant was informed that his mobile set has been repaired and to collect the same. Thus we hold that this bald assertion of OP no.2 cannot be relied upon. Since, the O.P. No.2 inspite of repeated repairs could not rectified the defects of the mobile set in question, which shows that the said mobile set is beyond repairs. Therefore, we do not hesitate to conclude that the O.P. No.1 being manufacturer & seller & O.P. No.2 being service centre are not only liable to replace the same with the new one of same model with requisite warranty. But also liable to pay compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him and also cost of litigation. In case, it is not possible to replace the mobile in question with the new one then they should refund the amount of Rs.9999/-, the same being the price of the mobile set.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint against O.Ps. No.1 & 2. They are directed in the following manner:-
- To replace the mobile set of the complainant with the new one of the same model with requisite warranty and if that is not possible to refund the amount of Rs.9999/-, the same being the price of the mobile phone.
- To pay Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation
The Ops no.1&2 are further directed to comply with the order jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED
DATED: 29.12.2016
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
