Deepak Arora filed a consumer case on 14 Nov 2017 against National Time in the Sangrur Consumer Court. The case no is CC/365/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 29 Nov 2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 365
Instituted on: 26.07.2017
Decided on: 14.11.2017
Deepak Arora son of Sh. Ram Sarup, resident of #415, Bombay Street, Sunami Gate, Sangrur.
…. Complainant
Versus
1. National Time, Court Road, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ Partner.
2. OPPO Mobile India, 2nd Floor, Block 1 , Vatika Business Park, Sohna Road, Sector 49, Gurgaon Haryana through its Managing Director.
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Shri Vinay Jindal Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTY No.1 : Shri Ashish Grover, Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2 : Exparte
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Deepak Arora, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased one Oppo F1s 64 GB mobile phone from the OP no.1 for an amount of Rs.19000/- vide invoice no. 9109 dated 15.12.2016 and OP had given warranty of one year. From the very beginning, the mobile set in question started giving problem of hanging, poor battery back and non-catching of network of the network provider. In the month of June 2017, the mobile set started giving another problem of display flickering and touch not working properly for which the complainant approached the OP No.1 who told that care centre of the company is situated at Ludhiana and Patiala, therefore he will send the set to care centre for repair. After two days, the set was returned to the complainant but the problem of display flickering and touch not working properly remains the same. The complainant alongwith his friend Baldev Kumar again visited the OP no.1 on 15.07.2017 but he refused to entertain the complaint. The complainant also demanded the job sheet but OP no.1 refused to give the same. Then the complainant requested the OPs to replace the defective mobile set with new one as it is within guarantee period but OPs refused to do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed to refund the purchase amount of the said mobile phone i.e. Rs.19000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,
ii) OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment,
iii) OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OP no.2 did not appear and as such OP no.2 was proceeded exparte on 08.09.2017.
3. In reply filed by OP No.1, it has been stated that complainant never visited the OP no.1 as alleged. If any liability arises that is of OP no.2 being manufacturer. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no.1.
4. The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP No.1 has not any document in evidence.
5. From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.1, we find that complainant purchased Oppo F1s 64 GB mobile phone from the OP no.1 for an amount of Rs.19000/- vide invoice no. 9109 dated 15.12.2016 which is Ex.C-1 on record. The complainant has stated that from the very beginning, the mobile set in question started giving problem of hanging, poor battery back and non-catching of network of the network provider and in the month of June 2017, the mobile set started giving another problem of display flickering and touch not working properly for which he approached the OP No.1 who told that care centre of the company is situated at Ludhiana and Patiala, therefore he will send the set to care centre for repair. The complainant further stated that after two days, the set was returned to him but the problem of display flickering and touch not working properly persisted and he alongwith his friend Baldev Kumar again visited the OP no.1 on 15.07.2017 but the Op no.1 refused to entertain the complaint. The complainant has alleged that he also demanded the job sheet but OP no.1 refused to give the same. To prove his case that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question, the complainant has produced on record copy of report of an expert namely Damanjit Singh alongwith his affidavit Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-3 respectively wherein it has been stated that he retained the defective mobile set with him for two days and used the same. After using the same, he found that mobile was given the problem of " Display Flickering and touch not working properly". He got checked the said mobile phone and found that the mobile set has manufacturing defect which is not curable one. The OP no.1 did not appear to contest the case of the complainant rather they chosen to remain exparte. Moreover, the OP no.1 has not produced any documentary evidence to contest the case of the complainant. As such evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted.
6. For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs, who are jointly and severally liable, to replace the mobile set in question with new one of the same model with fresh warranty. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and litigation expenses.
7. This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course. Announced
November 14, 2017
(Vinod Kumar Gulati) ( Sarita Garg) (Sukhpal Singh Gill) Member Member President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.