Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/163/2015

Ashok Jakhar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S New Talent Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

Suman Lata

18 May 2016

ORDER

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.

Complaint Case No.163 of 2015.

Date of Instt.:13.08.2015.

Date of Decision: 09.06.2016.

Ashok Jakhar aged 23 years son of Shri Chhotu Ram, resident of village Dhingsara, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

 

...Complainant

     Versus

1. M/s. New Talent Mobile, Palikz Bazar, Fatehabad, Tehsil and District Fatehabad through its Proprietor/ Partner.

 

2. M/s B&B Mobiles, Spice Care/ Service Center, Palika Bazar, Fatehabad through its Proprietor.

 

3. Spice Mobile Limited, D-1, Noida-201301 (U.P.) through its Managing Director/ Manager.

 

..Opposite Parties.

Before:       Sh. Raghbir Singh, President.

                   Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.    

 

Present:       Sh.Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for complainant.

                   Opposite parties No.1 & 2 already exparte.

                   Sh. U.K. Gera, Advocate for opposite party no.3.

                  

 

ORDER

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a mobile set of Spice company Model 506 MI from opposite party No.1 vide bill invoice No.4094 dated 28.08.2014 for a sum of Rs.6900/-.  One year warranty of the mobile was given to the complainant. It is further pleaded that after three/ four months of its purchase, the mobile started creating problem as one SIM was not working despite the fact that it was a dual sim and same was not charging. The complainant approached to opposite party no.1 and narrated about the problem who kept the mobile with it and asked to come after 4 days  by saying that there is major problem in the handset. It is further pleaded that after four days, the opposite party no.1 handed over the mobile to him by stating that all the problems have been removed and mobile is working properly. However, the mobile was not working properly and problem was still in existence in the mobile. On making complaint in this regard, the op no.1 gave the address of op no.2 and stated that op no.2 is authorized care/service center of the company and there is liability of op no.2 to remove all the problems under warranty. Upon this, the complainant approached to op no.2 on 14.5.2015 vide job sheet No.07100026F50064 and asked to remove the said problems. The mechanic of op no.2 told the complainant that there is major problem in the mobile and asked to come again after 3/4 days. It is further pleaded that op no.2 returned the mobile to the complainant on 5.6.2015 by saying that all the problems have been removed and now there is no problem in the mobile. However, the mobile was not working and created problem of not working of Dual sim, started giving current, switched off and on automatically and touch screen of the mobile was not working. When complainant visited to op no.2 on 7.6.2015, its mechanic told him that there is major problem in the mobile and asked him to come again after 10 days. Thereafter, complainant visited op no.2 several times, but it did not give any satisfactory reply and told that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile and temporarily removed the problem and returned the same on 6.7.2015 by saying that all the problems have been removed. It is further pleaded that complainant again visited op no.2 with the same problems and mobile was deposited vide job sheet No.07100026F70039 and was returned on 4.8.2015 but the problem was still in existence and even the mobile was dead. On visit to op no.2 again, it told that there is manufacturing defect and mobile cannot be repaired. The complainant requested to replace the mobile with new one, but the ops No.1 & 2 flatly refused to do so and misbehaved with the complainant. In this way, there is great deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and financial loss suffered by the complainant. He is also entitled to refund of the cost of the mobile alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of its deposit till actual realization. Hence, this complaint.

 3.               Inspite of due service, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties no.1 & 2, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.

4.                Opposite party no.3 appeared through counsel on 9.11.2015 and availed various adjournments for filing reply including last opportunity. On 24.12.2015 no reply was filed despite last opportunity  and adjournment was sought which was granted subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- . However, on 8.1.2016 also reply was not filed and as such defence of op no.3 was struck of.

5.                The complainant in his exparte evidence has tendered his affidavit as Ex.CW1, cash/credit memo dated 20.8.2014 as Ex.C1, status reports as Ex.C2 and Ex.C3.

6.                We have heard learned counsel for complainant and learned counsel for opposite party no.3 and have perused the case file carefully.

7.                It is not disputed that the complainant had purchased a mobile handset in question from opposite party No.1 on 20.8.2014 for an amount of Rs.6900/- as is evident through Ex.C1. The complainant has alleged problems of not working of one SIM inspite that the mobile is of double sim and also not charging within three/four months of its purchase.  According to the complainant, the mobile in question has been repaired for a number of times but the said problems are still in existence. According to the complainant, there is manufacturing defect in the mobile in question as told by opposite party no.2 i.e. care/ service center.  The contentions put forth by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged as the opposite parties No.1 & 2 have failed to appear before this Forum and have opted to be proceeded against exparte whereas opposite party no.3 despite appearance has failed to file any reply to controvert the pleadings of the complainant. Therefore, it is proved on record that mobile in question is having inherent defects and went out of order during warranty period and defects could not be removed by the opposite parties despite repairs for a number of times and despite several visits of the complainant. The complainant has been deprived from using the mobile despite the fact that he has invested huge amount of Rs.6900/- for purchasing the mobile in question. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted to provide protection to consumers from getting cheated or harassed by suppli­ers and it is the duty of the Forum to provide a sim­pler and quicker access to redressal of consumer grievances. This forum feel concerned that these days in fast life style of society, cellular set has become part and partial of every person and due to huge demand of mobiles the companies are attracting the customers by adopting different modes of advertisements but at the same time after selling the mobile set oftenly customers as well as consumers face a lot of problem even after paying the full cost of mobile set.   In totality, the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of OPs as defined in Sections 2 (f) and 2 (g) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

8.                Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that complainant is entitled to refund of the price of the mobile in question as prayed for. In this regard, we are fortified with the observations in case titled as Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. & Others 2014(1)CLT588  wherein 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 satisfy the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product-if the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and if 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”.

9.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile in question i.e. Rs.6900/- to the complainant jointly and severally within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this order. We further direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- in lump sum to the complainant as compensation for harassment including litigation expenses.  This order should be complied within a period of one month, failing which the above said amount of Rs.6900/- will carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual realization and the complainant will be at liberty to initiate legal action against the opposite parties.  File be consigned to the record after due compliance.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of costs.

 

Announced in open Forum:    

Dt.09.06.2016.                                  (Raghbir Singh)

                                                           President,

                                                 District Consumer Disputes                                                                        Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.

(R.S.Panghal)                                       

 Member