Haryana

Sonipat

CC/353/2015

Satish Kumar Bhanwala S/o Pyare Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Raheja mobile Plaza - Opp.Party(s)

S.P. Sharma

05 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.353 of 2015

                                Instituted on:21.09.2015

                                Date of order:05.05.2016

 

Satish Kumar Bhanwala son of Pyare Lal, r/o Meham road, Gohana, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

 

                                                      ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1.Raheja Mobile Plaza, near Bus Stand, Rohtak road, Gohana, distt. Sonepat.

2.Incharge Xolo Smart Phones care centre, plot no.189, Cue Huda Complex, Rohtak.

3.XOLO Smart Phones through its Manager, A-56, Sector 64, Noida (UP).

 

                                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Shri VP Sharma Adv. for complainant.

           Respondent no.1 ex-parte.

           Sh. Dheeraj Sachdeva, Adv. (Karnal) for respondents no.2&3.

 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

 

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased Xolo mobile set from the respondent no.1 on 3.10.2014 for Rs.12000/- vide receipt no.2217.  In the month of 10/2014, there came some defect in the mobile and the mobile set was handed over to respondent no.2, who had changed the PVC of the mobile and has taken Rs.5000/- form the complainant as insurance of mobile.  The mobile set was returned to the complainant in January, 2015.  In the month of 3/2015 and 6/2015, some defects occurred in the mobile and the same was handed over to respondent no.2.  The defects were removed for the shortest period as the same fault occurred on 20.6.2015 and the mobile set was deposited with respondent no.2, but of no use.  There is some manufacturing defect in the mobile and this has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant.  So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondents no.2 and 3 have appeared and have filed their written statement whereas respondent no.1 was proceeded against ex-parte.

         The respondents no.2 and 3 in their written statement have submitted that the complainant has approached the service centre of the company on 7.7.2015 and the mobile set was checked and it was told that the unit of the complainant is out of warranty and repair of unit will be on paid basis.  The complainant has agreed for the same. After necessary repair, it was told to the complainant that his mobile set is ready for delivery, but the complainant has refused to take the same and has directly filed the present complaint. There is no defect in the mobile set and there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set. The allegations alleged by the complainant in the present complaint is altogether is wrong, false and baseless.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.2 and 3. So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua respondent no.2 and 3.

3.       We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3 have submitted that the complainant has approached the service centre of the company on 7.7.2015 and the mobile set was checked and it was told that the unit of the complainant is out of warranty and repair of unit will be on paid basis.  The complainant has agreed for the same. After necessary repair, it was told to the complainant that his mobile set is ready for delivery, but the complainant has refused to take the same and has directly filed the present complaint. There is no defect in the mobile set and there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile set. The allegations alleged by the complainant in the present complaint is altogether is wrong, false and baseless.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.2 and 3. So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

         But we find no force in the contentions raised by the ld.counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3.  The complainant has purchased the mobile set from the respondent no.1 on 3.10.2014 for Rs.12000/- and as per the respondents no.2 and 3, the complainant has approached the service centre of the company on 7.7.2015 and the mobile set was checked and it was told that the unit of the complainant is out of warranty and repair of unit will be on paid basis.  We failed to understand, why the complainant was asked that his mobile set is out of warranty, particularly when he has purchased the mobile set on 3.10.2014 and he approached the service centre on 7.7.2015.  Even at that time also, the mobile was within warranty and was about 9 months old.  It was obligatory on the part of the respondents no.2 and 3 to replace the mobile set with new one if there was any manufacturing defect in the mobile.  The complainant has also served the respondents with legal notice dated 6.7.2015.  When nothing was heard from the side of the respondents, the complainant has to file the present complaint before this Forum.  In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if the directions are given to the respondents no.2 and 3 to refund the cost of the mobile to the tune of Rs.12000/- to the complainant.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents no.2 and 3 to refund the cost of the mobile i.e. Rs.12000/- (Rs.twelve thousand) to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization. The complainant is directed to return the defective mobile set alongwith all its original accessories to the respondents no.2 and 3 and in case of any short accessory, the respondents no.2 and 3 will be at liberty to deduct the cost of that short accessory from the awarded amount.  It is also made clear here that if the mobile set is in possession of the respondents, in that event, the respondents shall not claim the mobile set from the complainant.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondents no.2 and 3.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to the complainant and respondents free of costs.

          File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

 

(Prabha Wati)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF                        DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:05.05.2016