Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 252.
Instituted on : 29.05.2015.
Decided on : 31.07.2015.
Dharmender s/o Sh. Niranjan Kumar r/o H.No.523 Ward No.7, Pana Chulian, Village Beri Tehsil Beri District Jhajjar-124201.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Radhey-Radhey Communication, 18-A, First Floor, Gopal Complex, Chhotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak 124001(Haryana).
- Aneja Mobile Ghar, Maina Tourism Complex, Rohtak.
- Syntech Tech. Pvt. Ltd. F-2, Block no. B-1, Ground Floor, Mohan Corporative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite parties 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 set E-7 from the opposite party no.2 on 02.04.2014. It is averred that there was a defect of touch in the mobile of complainant and he contacted the opposite party no.1 on 01.04.2015 for rectifying the same as the same was within warranty period. Complainant was given an online job card and was asked to take the mobile upto 07.04.2015. The sim card was also given to the opposite party and it was found that the mobile was not working. It is averred that for repair charges of Rs.12000/- were told by the opposite party no.1 & 3 whereas the mobile set was within warranty period. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 15.04.2015 to the opposite party no.1 & 3 but no reply was given by the opposite party. It is averred that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay a sum of Rs.30000/- on account of mobile and sim card and to provide a new sim card as well as Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite parties. But opposite parties did not appear and as such was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.07.2015 of this Forum.
3. Complainant led evidence in support of his case.
4. Complainant in his evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that the complainant had purchased the mobile set for a sum of Rs.25000/- on 02.04.2014 from the opposite party no.1 as is proved from bill Ex.C1. It is also not disputed that as per service job sheet Ex.C2, there was problem of “handset hang touchpad auto working, TP not working TP point not accurate” in the alleged mobile set and the complainant had deposited the mobile set with the opposite party no.1.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the defect in the alleged handset appeared within warranty period and as per Service Job Sheet Ex.C2 it was handed over to the service centre of the company i.e. opposite party no.1 but the same could not be repaired and the set in question alongwith sim is with the opposite party no.1. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in 2008(1)CPC 52 titled Sony Ericsson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal, whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Mobile purchased from OP had problem in key pad-New hand set after replacement also found to be faulty-State Commission directed refund of the money while OP insisted to offer replacement by new hand set-Refund of amount is justified as deficiency in service is writ large-Order upheld” as per 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”. It is also on record that the opposite parties have not appeared before this Forum to rebut the version taken by the complainant in his complaint and were proceeded against exparte and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter. Therefore all the versions put forth by the complainant regarding defects in the alleged mobile set stands proved. In view of the aforesaid law, which are fully applicable on the facts & circumstances of the case, it is observed that the complainant is entitled for refund of price of mobile set.
8. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions, it is directed that the opposite party no.3 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.25000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.1500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. Opposite partyno.1 is also directed to handover the sim of mobile to the complainant. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
31.07.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
