| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No.345 of 5.9.2016 Decided on: 3.5.2017 Pushpinder Kumar C/o Garg Confectionary, Narata Market Samana District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus 1. Sangam Traders, Tehsil Road, Samana District Patiala through its Manager/Proprietor. 2. Lava Mobile Phone Care Centre C/o Sangam Traders, Tehsil Road, Samana through its Manager. 3. Lava Internationals Ltd., A-56, Sector-64, Noida (U.P.) …………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.Sunil Kumar, Representative of the complainant. Opposite party No.1 ex-parte. Sh.J.P.Sharma,Advocate,counsel for OPs No.2&3. ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER - The complainant purchased one mobile phone make, Lava, model KKT Ultra from Op no.1 for an amount of Rs.1250/- on 29.9.2015. It is averred that from the very first day of the said purchase, the mobile phone gave the problem like dropping of Network, hanging automatic switch off and many other problems. On 21.12.2015, the complainant submitted the mobile phone with OP no.2. i.e. the service centre of the company, vide work order No.510007070888. OP no.2 returned the mobile phone after rectifying the problem. When the complainant used the said mobile phone, it again started giving the same problem and the complainant again deposited the mobile phone with Op no.2 on 14.1.2016 vide work order No.510007358818 and OP no.2 returned the mobile phone to the complainant after rectifying the defect. After some time, the mobile phone again started giving the same problem. The complainant again got deposited the mobile phone with Op no.2 on 6.2.2016 vide work order No.510007561661 and the same was returned to the complainant after repairing the same. But the problem could not be rectified and the complainant again deposited the mobile phone with Op no.2 on 7.7.2016 vide work order No.510009332667 and again on 19.8.2016 vide work order No.510009852035 but the problem could not be solved. The mobile phone was got repaired five times in a period of eight months but the problem could not be rectified. As such, the complainant underwent a lot of mental agony as well as physical harassment and ultimately he approached this Forum under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act( for short the Act)1986.
- On notice, OP no.1 failed to appear despite service and was thus proceeded against exparte. Whereas Ops No.2&3 appeared through counsel and filed their reply to the complaint. In the reply, the OPs have clearly admitted the fact that the complainant approached the answering OPs on 21.12.2015 vide call No.51000707088, on 14.1.2016 vide call No.510007358818, on 2.2.2016 vide call No.510007561661 and on 5.7.2016 vide call No.510009332667 and every time OPs rectified the problem and returned the mobile phone to the complainant. Again the complainant approached OPs on 16.8.2016 vide call No.510009852035 and the OP repaired the mobile phone of the complainant and returned it to him. After that the complainant never reported any problem in the mobile phone. As such no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the OPs. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Ex.C1 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the representative of the complainant, ld. counsel for OPs no.2&3 and have also gone through the evidence on the file.
- Ex.C1 is the copy of invoice whereby the complainant purchased one mobile phone from Op no.1 on 29.9.2015.On 21.12.l2015, some problem cropped up in the said mobile phone and the complainant deposited the mobile phone with Op no.2 on 21.12.2015 and Op no.2 returned the mobile phone to the complainant after repairing the same. But the same defect again occurred in the said mobile phone. Thereafter the complainant again deposited the mobile phone with OP no.2 on 14.1.2016, 6.2.2016, 7.7.2016 and 19.8.2016 but the problem in the mobile phone could not be rectified and ultimately the complainant approached this Forum. OPs no.2&3 have clearly admitted in their written version that the complainant approached OP no.2 on 21.12.2015, 14.1.2016, 5.7.2016 and 16.8.2016 respectively and Op no.2 every time repaired the mobile phone of the complainant and after 16.8.2016 the complainant did not report any problem in the mobile phone.
- In the present case same defect occurred in the mobile phone again and again, despite its rectification by Op no.2, which shows that there must be some manufacturing defect which could not be rectified though Op no.2 tried to rectify the same. The defect occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period and the OPs were bound to rectify the same.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we partly accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OPs no.2&3 to replace the mobile phone of the complainant with a new one of the same make with requisite warranty and if that is not available, OPs shall refund the amount of Rs.12,500/-the same being the price of the mobile phone, to the complainant. OPs no.2&3 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days of receiving the certified copy of the order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED DATED:3.5.2017 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
