BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                             Complaint Case no.61 of  2017       

                                                          Date of Institution:          15.3.2017

                                                          Date of Decision:     25.01.2018

Rakesh Sharma son of Shree Niwas Sharma, resident of 13/294/5A, near Shiv Temple, Khanna Colony, Sirsa, now residing at Gali Masjid Wali, Noharia Bazar, Sirsa, District Sirsa.

                                                                                  ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Satyam Mobiles, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, through its Authorized person/ Incharge/ Authorized Signatory of the said showroom.

2. Lava Service Centre, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, through its Authorized person/ Incharge/ Authorized Signatory of the said showroom.

3. Lava International Ltd., A-47, Sector-58, Noida- 201301, UP through its Authorized person/ Incharge/ Authorized signatory of the said showroom.

                              ……… Opposite parties.

          Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT

                   SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.

Present:           Sh. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 and 3.

ORDER

          In brief, case of complainant is that complainant purchased one mobile set make Lava X-46 4G from opposite party no.1 against cash amount of Rs.7999/- vide invoice No.2507 dated 18.11.2016 with guarantee/ warrantee of one year. That just after few days of its purchase, the mobile started creating problem of heating, hanging, sound disturbance, auto shut off and start, battery backup and many times the mobile set gone out of order and also suffered problem of automatic off and rendered useless. On complaint to op no.1, the op no.1 found it to be as out of order due to manufacturing defect and asked him to approach op no.2, hence the complainant approached op no.2 and lodged a complaint and op no.2 retained the mobile set for two three days. Then after some repair as well as installing the new software op no.2 returned the same to the complainant but the same problem occurred again and again and could not be removed despite repair and the grievances of the complainant has not been redressed by the ops. Hence, this complaint.

2.                 On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that op no.1 purchased the mobile set from its manufacturer/ distributor in a sealed and packed condition and sold out the same as he received from the distributor/ manufacturer on the nominal profit. The answering op has never given any guarantee/ assurance or warrantee of mobile set to the complainant. If there is any fault, the same could be detected and removed by authorized centre only. The complainant never approached to op no.1 and if the complainant would have approached the op no.1, op no.1 would have tried his best to redress the grievance of complainant if any through proper channel. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.

3.                Opposite parties no.2 and 3 appeared and filed reply taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complaint is baseless and a result of colorful legal advice just to grab unlawful benefits from the answering op companies. That the complainant in regards to his complaint has approached to the answering op on 2.1.2017 vide call no.510011355056 with problem to make/ receive calls. The engineers of the company checked the unit and resolved the problem and the unit of the complainant was working in completely OK condition and the complainant took his unit with his full satisfaction. After that the complainant never reported to the answering ops any issue and without any reason has filed the present complaint. The answering op has established a number of service centers across the country and if there is any issue, the complainant may approach any of the service center for assistance but rather the complainant without any cause of action directly filed the present complaint. It is further submitted that in fact the company provides warranty of one year of the unit which is subject to some conditions. The present complaint is filed without any expert opinion and it cannot be ascertained that the unit is not working properly. 

4.                 The complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, bill Ex.C1 and copy of job sheet Ex.C2. On the other hand, ops no.2 and 3 produced affidavit of Sh. Amardeep Singh Ex.R1, copy of warranty policy Ex.R2 and copy of job sheet Ex.R3. Ld. counsel for op no.1 suffered a statement that written statement filed on behalf of op no.1 be read as evidence.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.                The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he has reiterated all the averments made in his complaint. It is proved fact on record that mobile of the complainant was within period of warranty as same was purchased by complainant on 18.11.2016 from op no.1 for a valuable consideration of Rs.7999/- and present complaint has been filed on 15.3.2017.

7.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for ops no.2 and 3 has conceded that it is legal obligation of the ops to carry out necessary repairs in the mobile set of the complainant which is manufactured by op no.3 and they never refused to carry out necessary repairs and it is lame excuses on the part of complainant.

8.                Since it is legal obligation of the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs in the mobile set of the complainant if it suffers from any defect or creating any problem and non providing of services clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of ops.

9.                In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs in the mobile set of the complainant to make the same defect free even by replacing any parts without cost within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the mobile in question from the complainant. In case it is found that mobile is not repairable, the ops shall be liable to replace the mobile of the complainant with a new one of same make and model within further period of 15 days and further in case it is found that mobile of same make and model is not available, then the ops shall be liable to refund the price of the mobile in question i.e. Rs.7999/- to the complainant within further period of one month, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum on the amount of Rs.7999/- from the date of order till actual payment. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. The complainant is also directed to hand over the mobile in question to the ops well in time against proper receipt.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum.              Member                      President,

Dated:25.1.2018.                                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                            Redressal Forum, Sirsa.