Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 420.
Instituted on : 17.11.2014.
Decided on : 09.03.2016.
Parveen s/o Sh. Satyawan R/o Gohana Distt. Sonipat.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Raheja Mobile Plaza, Dealer of Sansui mobile Gohana Near Bus Stand, Rohtak Road Gohana through its proprietor.
- Proprietor/Manager, Shri Hari Computer solution Sansui Customer Care Centre, above Mahavira drycleaners near Bank of Baroda Delhi Road, Rohtak.
- The Managing Director/Director, Sansui India Pvt. Ltd., E-59, behind Krishi Pawan Mandal Pune-411037 Maharashtra Ph.02024206000.
……….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: Sh. Naveen Saini, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party no.2 & 3 already exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that on 23.02.2014 he had purchased a Sansui Mobile phone from the opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.3700/-. It is averred that there was a free warranty/replacement of one year provided by the opposite party no.2 & 3 on the alleged phone. It is averred that the above said mobile phone stopped functioning on 04.06.2014 due to some defect in its screen. The complainant contacted with the opposite party no.1 and told him about the defect in question. Then opposite party suggested the complainant to got repaired his phone from opposite party no.2 being the authorized service centre. It is averred thatmon04.06.2014 the friend of complainant contacted the opposite party no.2 and the phone was deposited in Sansui care Centre. But after passing two months the opposite party has not repaired the phone nor replaced the same and now they have refused to repair the phone of complainant and did not return the mobile phone to the complainant. 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 replace the mobile set with a new one and to pay an amount of Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 appeared and stated that if any manufacturing defect is found in the disputed mobile, manufacturing company is liable and there is no role of the dealer and he does not want to file any reply. However opposite party no.2 & 3 did not appear despite service and opposite party no.2 vide order dated 01.05.2015 and opposite party no.3 vide order dated 16.12.2015 were proceeded against exparte.
3. Complainant led evidence in support of his case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW2/A and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 made a statement that there is no liability of opposite party no.1 in the present case and the manufacturing company is liable for the defect, if any in the mobile in question.
5. We have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 20.01.2016 for a sum of Rs.3700/- from the opposite party no.1 as is proved from the bill Ex.P1. It is also not disputed that as per job sheet Ex.P2 dated 04.06.2014 issued by the service centre i.e. opposite party no.2 there was problem of “touch proper not work” in the alleged mobile set and the set in question was within warranty period. As per the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant the set in question was not repaired by the opposite parties inspite of the fact that the set was in warranty period and as per the statement dated 02.03.2016 of ld. Counsel for the complainant, the set in question is in the possession of the opposite party no.2. On the other hand ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 has made a statement that the manufacturing company is liable for the defect if any in the mobile set.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the mobile in question was purchased by the complainant on 23.02.2014 and the defect in the mobile set appeared on 04.06.2014 i.e. only after 3 months during the warranty period and the same could not be repaired/replaced by the opposite parties. 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”. It is also on record that opposite party no.2 & 3 did not appear despite notice and as such it is presumed that they have nothing to say in the matter and as such all the allegations leveled by the complainant against them stands proved. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in 1998(3)CCC 65(P & H) whereby Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sardari Lal Vs. Kartar Singh & Ors. has held that: Non-appearance of a party as a witness in the suit-Gives rise to a strong presumption against him”. 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.
8. 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.3 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set i.e Rs.3700/-(Rupees three thousand seven hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 17.11.2014 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. 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:
09.03.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
