| Final Order / Judgement | - The fact of the case of complainant is that on 03.12.2015, he purchased one Lava mobile handset bearing model – LAVA Pixel V2 IMEI No. 911469400634320 alongwith a warranty certificate from the O.P. No. 1 and paid Rs. 10,200/- vide bill no. 903 dated 03.12.2015.The allegation of complainant is that after 5 months of its purchase, the alleged mobile showed several defects and stoppedits functioning and became defunct for which he approached the O.P.No.1, who received the alleged mobile and kept for 7 days with him and returned the same by saying of its repair, but again after its use for about 2 to 3 days, it showed the previous defects and on approach to the O.P.No.1, he advised the complainant to deposit the alleged mobile handset with the O.P.No.2 and after keeping some days, the O.P. No. 1 disclosed that the alleged mobile is having inherent manufacturing defects and advised to contact with O.P. No. 3 for its replacement and on several approach to O.P.no.3, there yielded no result.Thus, showing the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, complainant filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to replace the same model defect free handset or to refund the cost of alleged mobile and Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation to him.
- On the other hand, the O.P. No. 1 appeared in this case and filed his counter admitting the sale of alleged mobile handset to the complainant and the defects rectified by him but denied the other allegations contending that after repair the said mobile handset, the complainant never visited to his shop for further complaint, hence denying his liability, he prayed to dismiss the case against him.
- The O.P. No. 2 though received the notice from this Fora, did not choose to appear before this Fora nor filed his counter or written version nor participated in the hearing also, as such, we lost opportunities from him to come to know about the actual defects of the alleged mobile handset as alleged by the complainant.
- The O.P.No.3 after receiving the notice, appeared before this Fora and filed their written version contending that the O.P. No. 1 might have sold the alleged mobile handset to the complainant, but the same is not in their knowledge.Further they have contended that neither the complainant nor the O.P. No. 1 have intimated them regarding any defects occurred in the alleged mobile handset.It is also contended that their products are go through quality control department and after proper testing and being satisfied that the product is perfect in all respect, thereafter the product goes to the market for sale.With other contentions, showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
- Except complainant no other parties to the present dispute have filed any documents.
- During the time of hearing, heard from the complainant and A/R for the O.P. No. 3, rests O.Ps are absent on repeated calls.In the instant case, it is admitted fact that on 03.12.2015, complainant purchased the alleged Lava mobile handset bearing model – LAVA Pixel V2 IMEI No. 911469400634320 alongwith a warranty certificate from the O.P. No. 1 and paid Rs. 10,200/- vide bill no. 903 dated 03.12.2015. Complainant filed document to that effect. The allegation of complainant is that after 5 months of its purchase, the alleged mobile showed several defects and did not function and became defunct for which he approached the O.P.No.1, who received the alleged mobile and kept for 7 days and returned the same by saying of it being repaired. The O.P. No. 1 is also admitted the said fact in his counter version. Further allegation of complainant is that after its using the said mobile for about 2 to 3 days, it showed the previous defects and on approach to the O.P.No.1, who advised the complainant to deposit the alleged mobile handset with the O.P.No.2 and after keeping some days, the O.P. No. 1 disclosed that the alleged mobile is having inherent manufacturing defects and advised to contact with O.P. No. 3 for its replacement. Though the said version of complainant was challenged by the O.P. No. 1 but miserably failed to produce any cogent evidence like visitors register during that period and also the absence of the O.P. No. 2 makes the allegations of complainant strong and vital and remained unchallenged.Whereas it is also not disputed that the submissions of complainant to the effect that the O.P.No.1 kept the alleged mobile handset for about 7 days with him, is also not challenged by any of the parties.
Further the allegations of complainant to the fact that after 7 days of its receipt from the O.P.No.1, the said mobile showed the previous defect, as such as per advise of O.P.No.1, he handed over the alleged mobile handset to the O.P.No.2, who is the authorized service center of O.P.No.3. Further the absence of O.P. No. 2 throughout the proceeding, makes the allegations of complainant strong, and also we lost opportunities to come to know whether the alleged mobile handset is having inherent manufacturing defects, whereas the O.P. No. 2, being the authorized service center of the O.P. No. 3, was given several opportunities to submit his views. Further the O.P. No. 3 stated that neither the complainant nor the O.P. No. 1 have intimated them regarding any defects, which is not acceptable on the point that it is the first and foremost duty of the O.P.No. 3 to check out their marketing strategy for sale and service in regular intervals. From the above versions of O.P. No. 3, it is clearly evident that the O.P. No. 1 has not intimated the manufacturer regarding the above defects in alleged mobile handset. Hence, we feel, the O.P. No.1 had not provide proper service of the alleged mobile handset while the complainant handed over his mobile handset for the first time for its repair and the O.P.No.1 might have repaired the alleged mobile handset with the assistance of local technicians but not by any authorized serviced center of the O.P.No.3, as such the mobile handset became totally defunct. Had the O.P.No.1 made the repair through an authorized service center of O.P. No. 3, then the defects in the alleged mobile handset could have easily rectified. Further the absence of O.P.No.2 makes the versions of complainant strong and vital. Had the O.P. No.2 appear and submit his versions before us, then it could have ascertained that whether the alleged mobile handset was properly serviced or not, hence such absence of the O.P. No. 2 in the present proceeding makes the allegations and submissions of the complainant unrebutall. In the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another, Hon’ble National Commission has held that –“Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted”.
- Further, the versions of O.P.No.3 is only to the extent that the defects in the alleged mobile handset are not their knowledge, but did not choose to file any supportive documents to prove their submissions. Hence their version cannot be accepted from any angle. Further the defects were occurred within the warranty period, though the alleged mobile handset was used for about 5 months, which is well proved from the submissions of the complainant as well as O.P. No. 1. As such we feel, the alleged mobile handset was repaired by the O.P.No.1 through the local technicians but not by any authorized technicians of O.P.No.3, for which, the alleged handset reiterated its original defects, and such type of practice adopted by O.P.No.1 has clearly established the deficiency in service on his part.
We feel, had the O.P.No.1 rectified the defects in the alleged handset through the authorized service center set up by the O.P.No.3, then the defects of the mobile handset could have easily and properly rectified. Further it was the duty of O.P.No. 1 on the day when he received the alleged mobile handset from the complainant, immediately he was supposed to intimate the O.P.No.3 for providing better service to their genuine customer, as the customers who purchase the products of the O.P.No.3 from the O.P.No.1 must have depended on the O.P.No.1 to avail proper service. But without providing better service, as per the norms of the company, the O.P.No.1 indulged himself in corrupt practice of the selling the products, and carry out the repair works of alleged mobile handset as per his own choice by the assistance of local unauthorized technicians, which is not permitted in the eye of law. Further lying the said mobile handset for about four years without any use, in our view, is of no use.
- Hence considering the above discussions, we feel, the complainant deserves to be compensated with adequate compensation and costs for non providing better service by the O.Ps to their valuable customer like the Complainant, as the complainant must have suffered mental agony and physical harassment, for which the complainant was compelled to file this case incurring some expenses. Considering his suffering we feel a sum of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and costs will meet the ends of justice. Hence this order.
ORDER
The complaint petition is allowed in part and the O.P. No.3 being the manufacturer of the alleged product is directed to refund the cost of the alleged mobile handset i.e. of Rs. 10,200/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 10 % per annum from the date of purchase till payment and the O.P.No.1 is herewith directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of the communication of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry 10% interest from the date of this order. Further the complainant is directed to hand over the alleged defective mobile handset to the concerned person of the O.P.No. 3 at the time of complying the above order by the O.P. No.3.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 4th day of June, 2018.
Issue free copies to the parties concerned.
| |
