BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 65 of 2018                                                                           

                                                          Date of Institution         :    19.2.2018

                                                          Date of Decision   :    27.5.2019.

Dharam Pal, aged about 50 years son of Hazari Lal, resident of village Bharokhan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1- Ridhi Sidhi Mobiles, Opposite Arya Primary School, Sadar Bazaar, Sirsa through its Prop./  Partner.

2- Lava International Limited, Corporate Address, A-56, Sector 64, Noida, U.P. India 201301, through its authorized signatory/ officer Incharge.

  ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT

          SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL..…… MEMBER.        

          SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………….. MEMBER

Present:       Sh. Shankar Gupta,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Satpal Singh, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

                   Sh. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for opposite party No.2.

ORDER

                   The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant had purchased one new mobile set Model No. LAVA X 28 4G from the opposite party no.1 for an amount of Rs.6700/- vide cash memo no.14167 dated 21.2.2017 with one year guarantee and the said mobile is manufactured by op no.2. It is further averred that after few days of the purchase of mobile set, it stopped complete working and the said set is lying completely dead with the complainant. The complainant visited the shop of op no.1 from time to time for replacement of above said defective mobile set but he continued putting the complainant by saying that he has reported in this regard to the company and after few days a new set will be given to him but that day has not come till today. The op no.1 totally refused to replace the said defective mobile set to the complainant. The complainant also got issued a notice dated 14.12.2017 to the ops but to no effect. It is further averred that complainant had contacted both the ops after expiry of the notice period and requested them for replacement of defective mobile but of no use. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that op no.1 is only the distributor and used to sell the mobile of manufacturer/ company on the marginal basis in a sealed/ packed condition in the market, hence the op no.1 is not responsible for the manufacturing of the mobile, only the manufacturer is liable. It is further submitted that complainant was advised to get his complaint redressed from the authorized service centre, meaning thereby the dealers after sale of mobile set on behalf of the company, having no interference between the customers and service centre. Remaining contents of the complaint are denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

3.                Op no.2 in its separate reply has asserted that the intent of the op company is to serve its customer and provide goods at the most competitive price and also to enable most impeccable after sales service and there is no intent whatsoever to deny the same under any circumstances. In case any after sale service/ quality issue is brought to notice of the op/ service center, as a policy matter the same is immediately corrected as a matter of priority. It is further submitted that alleged defect cannot be determined on the simpliciter submissions of the complainant. The answering op has an online system to enter all claims/ complaints vide call no./ Sr. no. in each and every case but in the present complaint as per details mentioned in the complaint, no details found in the online system of the company which means that complainant has never approached to the answering op which means that there is no problem in the unit. It is further submitted that as per condition of warrantee, replacement of the product or refund is expressly excluded and warrantee covers only repair or replacement of any part thereof which needs replacement or repair for any reason. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.                The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.                The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also tendered cash/ credit memo Ex.C1 and copy of legal notice Ex.C2. On the other hand, ops tendered affidavit of Sh. Ritin Vatrana Ex.R1, copy of warranty policy Ex.R2 and affidavit of Sh. Sohan Lal, proprietor of op no.1 Ex.R3.

7.                It is proved fact on record that complainant has purchased a mobile from op no.1 for a consideration of Rs.6700/- vide sale invoice Ex.C1. There are specific allegations of the complainant in the complaint that after few days of purchase of mobile, it stopped complete working and the set is lying completely dead. He approached the ops with a request to make it defect free and in working condition but all the times they avoided the matter. Though, complainant has claimed replacement of the mobile, but it is settled principle of law that until and unless opinion of the expert is not placed on record, no order for replacement of the product can be passed. But however, it is legal obligation of the ops to provide after sale services to the complainant and to make product in working condition within warrantee period. Since ops did not bother to provide services to the complainant in getting his mobile repaired and to make it defect free, it clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

8.                In view of the above, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs in the mobile set and to make it defect free even by replacing any part without costs within 15 days from the date of receipt of mobile from the complainant and in case it is found by their expert engineer that mobile is not repairable, then they are directed to replace the same with new one of same make and model after considering depreciation value, if any. This order should be complied within above said stipulated period by the ops, failing which the ops shall be liable to make refund of the amount of the mobile of the complainant. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.   

Announced in open Forum.                                                     President,

Dated:27.5.2019.                Member           Member      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                      Redressal Forum, Sirsa.