Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/131/2016

Rockey Alias Rajesh S/o Subhash Chander - Complainant(s)

Versus

Papa Ji Mobile Centre - Opp.Party(s)

J.S. Sondhi

02 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 131 of 2016

                                                                                    Date of institution: 25.04.2016      

                                                                                    Date of decision: 02.03.2017

 

Rocky alias Rajesh age 40 years, son of Shri Subhash Chander resident of House No.536, New Hamida Colony, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, Mobile No.8222021419.

 

                                 …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Papa Ji Mobile Centre, Luxmi Cinema Road, Yamuna Nagar, through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized person.
2. Service Centre of Lava Mobile, Near Nehru Park, Opp. Barnala Showroom, Yamuna Nagar, through its Proprietor/Partner.
3. ML Enterprises (Head Office), Hari Parshad Colony, Yamuna Nagar, through its Proprietor/Partner.

                                                                                                                                          …Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Shri J.S.Sodhi, Advocate. counsel for complainant.  

                        Respondent No.1 already ex-parte vide order dated 13.05.2016.

                        Sh. Sumit Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.2

                        Respondent No.3 already given up.                  

             

ORDER (Ashok Kumar Garg, President)

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a mobile set Make Lava X 8, IMEI No.911C133801589C13 from the respondent No.1 (hereinafter respondents will be referred OPs) vide Bill No.1522 dated 13.10.2015 for a sum of Rs.7800/- whose service centre is OP No.2. After some time, the said mobile became defective and once the said mobile switched off then it never switched on. Upon which, the complainant immediately contacted the Op No.1 who advised to contact the OP No.2 Service Centre and accordingly the complainant visited the authorized service centre of Op No.2 and after inspection of the mobile in question, the official of Op No.2 told to the complainant that the defects of the mobile in question could not be repaired as the defects were manufacturing defects and flatly refused to do anything. Finding no alternative, the complainant served a legal registered notice dated 17.03.2016 but all in vain. Lastly, prayed for directing the OPs to refund Rs. 7800/- and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 failed to appear despite service, hence, he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 13.05.2016 whereas Op No.3 was given up vide order dated19.08.2016.

4                      OP No.2 appeared and filed its written statement. Besides preliminary objections, stated on merit that company provides one year comprehensive warranty on the unit, warranty means in case of any problem with the unit, the unit will be repaired or its parts will be replaced as per company policy and further subject to some conditions and the warranty of unit becomes void in the following conditions:

1. Liquid Logged/water logging.
2. physically Damage.
3. Serial No. missing.
4. Tampering
5. Mishandling/Burnt etc.

            It is also submitted that the OP No.2 was always ready to repair the unit as per company policy, but the complainant is not ready get repaired it as per condition of warranty. Rest contents of the complainant were denied being wrong and incorrect. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                     In support of the case, counsel for the complainant tendering into evidence affidavit of Chetna wife of Rocky as Annexure CA and affidavit of complainant as Annexure CB and documents such as photocopy of bill bearing No.1522 dated 13.10.2015 as Annexure C-1, photocopy of Legal Notice dated 17.03.2016 as Annexure C2, photocopy of postal receipts as Annexure C3, photocopy of acknowledgement as Annexure C-4 and C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Amardeep Singh C/o Lava International Ltd., as Annexure R2/A and document such as  photocopy of Lava Warranty Certificate as Annexure R2/1 and closed evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

8.                     It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the mobile phone on 13.10.2015 vide bill No. 1522 for a sum of Rs.7,800/- from OP No.1 whose service centre is OP No.2. The only plea of the complainant is that the mobile phone in question is defective from the very beginning and defects could not be rectified by the OPs despite various efforts.

9.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.2 vehemently argued that after using the handset for two (2) months without any problem whatsoever, the complainant visited the authorized service centre on 05.01.2016  vide work order No. 510007249314 and the engineer of the service centre checked the unit and found that unit was liquid logged/water logged and the official of the service centre told to the complainant that the warranty of unit is barred due to the same effect and the service will be on paid basis but the complainant instead of getting the unit repaired, became adamant not to pay the charges of repair and started demanding a new phone in replacement.  Except this, no other complaint has ever been lodged by the complainant. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  

10                    After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2 & 3 as the OP No. 2 has admitted in its reply that the complainant approached the authorized service centre for the repair of the mobile set and the engineer of the service centre checked the unit and found that the unit was liquid logged/water logged but the OP No.2 totally failed to file any evidence or submit any affidavit of the Manager/Mechanic of the Service Centre to prove that mobile set in question was liquid logged/water logged whereas the version of the complainant is duly supported by his affidavit as well as copy of bill. Further, the complainant issued a registered legal notice to the OPs which is evident from Annexure C-2 and acknowledgement as well as postal receipts Annexure C-3 and C-4 but the OPs failed to file any reply of the legal notice which goes unrebutted and complainant was forced to file the present complaint. Now a days, mobile set has become the necessity of the human beings and without the mobile set, a person feels himself as handicapped.

11.                   Further the complainant has lodged his complaint with Op No.2 within a short span of time and also filed the present complaint within a period of 5-6 months. Hence, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and we have no option except allow the complaint of complainant. No deficiency has been proved against Op No.1, so complaint qua Op No.1 is hereby dismissed.  

12.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP No.2 to refund an amount of Rs. 6240/- being 80% of the total cost of the mobile set to the complainant within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order, subject to deposit of old mobile set with OP No.2, failing which complainant shall be entitled to recover the interest at the rate of 7% per annum for the defaulted period. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:02.03.2017.

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

                                                                        DCDRF,YAMUNANAGAR.

 

 

                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA    )

                                                                        MEMBER