BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 33 of 2015                                                                       

                                                         Date of Institution         :    10.2.2015

                                                          Date of decision   :    29.4.2016

Jaideep Garg, Advocate son of Sh.Ramji Dass Garg, Advocate, r/o Old Court Colony, Sirsa, District Sirsa.                                                                                                                                              ……Complainant.

                                      Versus.

1. Satyam Mobiles, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa through its    proprietor.
2. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., A Wing, 3^rd Floor, D-3, Distt. Centre,  

      Saket, New Delhi-110017 through its Managing Director.

3. Google, Unitech Signature Tower-II, Tower B, Sector 15, Part Ii,

      village Silokhera,Gurgaon-122001.                                                                             

 ...…Opposite parties.

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

Before:        SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT

          SH.RAJIV MEHTA………… ……MEMBER.  

Present:       Sh.Kapil Sharma,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. N.K.Daroliya, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.

                   Sh.Kapil Dev, Advocate for the opposite party no.2.

                   Sh.Sandeep Kamboj, Advocate for opposite party no.3.

          ORDER

          Brief facts of the complaint are that on 8.2.2014, the complainant purchased a new mobile handset LG Nexus 5 from opposite party no.1 for Rs.33500/-. In the beginning, the working of said mobile set was very good, but opposite party no.3 developed and launched new software namely Lilipope and thus all the mobiles were automatically updated. Thereafter, the mobile set became useless and switched off automatically any time. He approached Op no.1, who stated that this is a software problem and same can only be rectified by Op no.3 through new software version. The complainant sent complaints through E-mail to Op no.3 and also contacted the opposite parties no.1 and 2 many times, but they did not pay any heed. Hence, the present complaint for replacement of the mobile set or in alternative, for return of its price, with upto date interest besides claiming damages for harassment and litigation expenses.       

2.                Satyam Mobiles i.e. opposite party no.1, in its reply, has admitted the selling of said mobile set to the complainant for that sale consideration on that date; but denied rest of the case of the complainant.

3.                Opposite party no.2 filed its separate written statement by pleading that said mobile set of the complainant has become out of warranty as the same was purchased on 8.2.2014. Further, the complainant has not lodged even a single complaint with the opposite party no.2 or its authorized service centre for removal of any problem as alleged. After updating of software, no mobile set has created problems.

4.                Opposite party no.3 in its reply has pleaded that it has no concern or connection with the alleged rights because it is neither involved in the business of manufacturing of mobile handsets or developing software for any such handset.  Thus, it is neither necessary nor a proper party and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record  Ex.C1-his own supporting affidavit and  Ex.C2-various complaints of LG Google Nexus 5; Ex.C3-copy of purchase bill dated 8.2.2014.

6.                 In reply thereto, opposite parties have placed on record Ex.R1-supporting affidavit of Sh.Vinod Gaur, Branch Service Manager of Op no.2, Ex.R2-Ms.Renu Gupta, proprietor of Op no.1; Ex.RW3/A-affidavit of Smt.Gitanjli Duggal, Constituted attorney of op no.3.

7.                We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties.

8.                It is admitted fact that the said mobile set was purchased by the complainant on 8.2.2014 from Op no.1 for sum of Rs.33500/-. From the perusal of documents placed on record by the complainant, we are of the view that after its purchase, the mobile set became defective and complainant lodged complaint to opposite parties but in vain. Thus, the complainant has proved his case. As such, the complaint is accepted and Op no.2 is directed to refund the price of mobile in question within a period of one month from the date of order and the complainant is entitled for litigation expenses Rs.1000/-, failing which the complainant would be entitled to interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realization. The complainant is also directed to hand over the defective mobile set to Op no.2 at the earliest. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  

Announced in open Forum.                                    President,

Dated:29.4.2016.                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                                    Member.

                                    D.C.D.R.F.,

                                       Sirsa.