BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.183 of 2015
Date of Instt. 30.04.2015
Date of Decision :02.11.2015
Tejinder Singh son of Gurmit Singh, R/o 371, VPO Chugitti, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant Versus
1. M/s Mobile House, H.O:- Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd., Regd.Office:- Phagwara Gate, near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Person.
2. Lava International, Corporate Headquarters A-56, Sector-64, Noida, Uttar Pardesh-201301, India through its Chief Manufacturing Officer Sanjeev Aggarwal/MD/Authorized Person.
3. Authorized Service Centre Lava XOLO, Bunty Mobile World Shop-29, Anand Market, Backside Shimla Palace, near Baba Lal Dwara Mandir, Partap Bagh, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner/ Authorized Person.
.........Opposite parties.
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.SK Rayat Adv., counsel for complainant.
Sh.Aditya Jain Adv., counsel for OP No.1.
Opposite parties No.1 & 3 exparte.
Order
J.S.Bhatia (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant purchased a mobile LAVA Mobile IRIS X8 91143300880297 from opposite party No.1 vide retail invoice dated 19.3.2015 for Rs.8900/- and also charged Rs.599/- for software of Dail A/c 3886592 vide separate inovice No.69948. The complainant became the consumer of the opposite parties. The complainant when used the product sold by the opposite party No.1, he found the mobile set was defective as it hangs sometimes, range vanished and thereafter the screen becomes black as dead. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and revealed the defect in the mobile set purchased from opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 told the complainant that the product is within warranty period and advised complainant to go to service centre i.e opposite party No.3. As advised by the opposite party No.1, the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 and revealed the problem in the mobile set purchased by the complainant. The opposite party No.3 told the complainant to deposit the mobile with opposite party No.3. Complainant deposited the mobile set on 27.3.2015. The opposite party No.3 kept the mobile set of the complainant and returned the same after one week on 4.5.2015 (4.4.2015) and told that it was having some manufacturing defect in the screen therefore the screen of the same is replaced. Thereafter the mobile worked for sometime but again the complainant found same problem as the range vanished. The complainant again went to opposite party No.3, they took the mobile of the complainant and opened the same thereafter sorted the same. But after few days the mobile hanged and then touch stopped and screen again turned black, then the glass of the same was removed by the opposite party No.3. The mobile was returned to the complainant. The complainant found the same problem in the mobile and asked the opposite party No.3 to remove the defect completely but the opposite party No.3 humiliated the complainant in presence of other customers and told that there is some manufacturing defect in the mobile set of the complainant. The mobile set of the complainant is still defective with the hanging problem and auto switch off and screen turning black. The opposite party No.3 has failed to cure the defect in the mobile set. The opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of the mobile set purchased by complainant from opposite party No.1. This is clearly deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to return the price of the mobile handset. He has also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, opposite party No.2 appeared and filed a written reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party, want of cause of action etc. It further pleaded that there is no defect in the mobile set what to speak about manufacturing defect. It is further submitted that the opposite party No.2 is one of the renowned company in India and alongwith other products is engaging in business of manufacturing mobiles and its sales. On a single time thousands of mobiles are manufactured and if there is any alleged manufacturing defect during manufacturing of the same, then the same will occur in an entire lot. It is further submitted that till date, the opposite party No.2 was not in a receipt of a single complaint from any of its customer who are using the same model mobile manufactured by the opposite party No.2 of the same lot. The complainant in regards to his complaint regarding the mobile has approached the service centre with some issue in the unit at the service centre of the company and the solution was provided to the complainant and after checking the unit no hardware replaced and just to refresh the unit software. But the complainant being adamant and demanded refund to which the complainant was told that the unit of the complainant is repairable so it can not be replaced with the new one and the demand for replacement is not genuine and the same is against the company policy. It is submitted that the unit is working properly still the opposite parties were and are ready to repair the unit as per company policy, there is no manufacturing defect in the unit, to prove the manufacturing defect the complainant did not produce any expert report. It denied other material averments of the complainant.
3. Upon notice opposite parties No.1 and 3 did not appear and as such they were proceeded against exparte.
4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A and closed evidence.
6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.
7. The complainant purchased the mobile handset in question for Rs.8900/- vide retail invoice dated 19.3.2015 Ex.C1 from opposite party No.1. Counsel for the complainant contended that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile handset which the opposite parties have failed to remove and as such they should be directed to refund its price. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 that as per record the complainant approached the service centre i.e opposite party No.3 on 27.3.2015 and the same was returned on 4.5.2015(4.4.2015) after removing the defect. He further contended that thereafter complainant never approached the service centre. He further contended that however, the opposite party No.2 is still ready to remove the defect, if any in the mobile handset of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the warranty. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsels for both the parties. In para 2 of the complaint, the complainant has himself pleaded that he deposited the mobile set on 27.3.2015 and opposite party No.3 kept the mobile set and returned the same after one week on 4.5.2015 (4.4.2015) and it told that there is some manufacturing defect in the screen therefore the screen of the same has been replaced. The complainant has himself placed on record “Typed text message” Ex.C4 of 4th April in this regard. The complainant has not examined any expert witness to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. During warranty, the manufacturer is liable to repair and rectify the defect, if any and replacement is only justified where there is manufacturing defect in the product. The complainant has not led any reliable evidence to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in his mobile handset. It is in the written reply of opposite party No.2 that the unit is working properly still the opposite parties were and are still ready to repair it as per company policy and there is no manufacturing defect in it.
8. So in the above circumstances, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite party No.2 through its service centre is directed to repair and rectify the defect in the mobile handset of the complainant, if any free of cost. However, the complainant is awarded Rs.2000/- on account of litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia
02.11.2015 Member Member President
