Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 230.
Instituted on : 02.05.2016.
Decided on : 11.07.2016.
Pankaj Nehra s/o Sh. Om Parkash Nehra R/o H.No.534 Sector-1, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Shri Hari Computers Solutions(Yuphoria Care) SCO-189, Huda Complex, Rohtak Haryana-124001.
- Yu Televenture Pvt. Ltd. Plot 21/14 Block A Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-2 New Delhi-110028.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite parties already exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a Mobile phone on dated 02.06.2015 i.e. YU Yuphoia(Buffed Steel) by online shopping from AMAZON through its seller i.e. opposite party no.2. It is averred that after using the mobile phone for few months the complainant was very surprise that the display and touch of above said mobile set was not working properly and phone gets heated after using the same for few minutes. It is averred that complainant contacted the service centre and they assured that it a temporary issue but after few months of their assurance, the phone get permanently disabled. Complainant again contacted the service centre on 24.02.2016 for door step services but they refused the request and guided to deposit the above handset at his nearby service centre. It is averred that complainant deposited his set with the opposite party no.1 on 01.03.2016 and requested to repair the above said mobile. It is averred that opposite party asked the complainant to receive the mobile set within 7-10 days but when the complainant contacted the opposite party to bring his mobile phone, the opposite party answered that the mobile phone is not ready/repaired and asked to come after 15 days. But even after that date, the mobile set was not repaired. It is averred that despite his repeated requests, mobile phone was not repaired by the opposite party. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of mobile set alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party no.1 received back duly served and notice sent to opposite party through registered post dated 03.05.2016 but none appeared on their behalf and as such opposite parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.06.2016 of this Forum.
3. Complainant led evidence in support of his case, has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and has closed his evidence.
4. We have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that as per invoice Ex.C2 the complainant had purchased the mobile set online for a sum of Rs.6999/- from the opposite party no.2. It is also not disputed that the alleged handset was defective and the complainant deposited his mobile set on 01.03.2016 with the opposite party no.1 and as per job sheet Ex.C1 there was a problem of “touch and LCD issue” in the handset which was in warranty.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the mobile in question was purchased by the complainant on 02.06.2015 and the defect in the mobile set appeared during the warranty period. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant his mobile set could not be repaired/replaced by the opposite parties during the warranty period. It is also on record that opposite parties did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding defect in the mobile set stands proved. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in 2014(1)CLT588 titled Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. & Others 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 satisfied 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”. In view of the aforesaid law which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that it is a fit case where the refund of price is justified.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set. As such it is directed opposite party No.2 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set i.e Rs.6999/-(Rupees six thousand nine hundred ninety nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 02.05.2016 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. The set in question is already with the opposite party no.1 i.e. service centre. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
11.07.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
