Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 670.
Instituted on : 14.12.2016.
Decided on : 01.10.2018.
Ashok Kumar s/o Sh. Daryao Singh R/o H.No.381, Gali No.06, Shakti Nagar, Jhajjar Road, Bahadurgarh Distt. Jhajjar.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Snapdeal Corporate, Head Office:- Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd. First Floor, Phase III, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi.
- Lava International Ltd. A-56, sector 64, Noida 201301 UP.
- Shri Hari Computer Solutions, SCO-189, HUDA Complex, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Pawan Jangra, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.V.P.Gehlawat, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party No.2.
Opposite party No.3 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a mobile phone from the opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.11125/- vide bill No.SCC848/15-16/1057 dated 21.01.2016. That soon after purchase it was found there was manufacturing defect in the said mobile phone and there was problem of switch off, touch issue and Hangs up on other application of mobile phone. That complainant contacted the OP no.3 for repair of his mobile in the month of May, August and December but despite repeated repairs, the problem remained the same and mobile did not work properly. That complainant requested the OPs either to replace the mobile set or to refund the price but the same was refused by the OPs. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs either to replace the said mobile phone with new one or refund the price thereof amounting to Rs.11125/- alongwith interest, compensation qua harassment and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No.3 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 31.01.2017 of this Forum. Ld. counsel for OP No.1 in its reply has submitted that the grievances of the complainant is all about after sale services not being provided by the manufacturer and repairing services denied by the service center when the product was still under warranty period provided by the manufacturer. The present complaint should have been preferred only against the manufacturer and the complainant has been wrong in arraying the OP No.1 as a party to this complaint. Hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder of party.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that complainant in regard to his complaints has approached the service centre on dated 02.05.2016, 30.05.2016, 06.06.2016, 20.06.2016, 22.08.2016 and 03.12.2016 and all the time the issues were resolved and the complainant took the delivery of the unit to his full satisfaction. After that the complainant without any cause of action, directly filed the present complaint. That Ops are still ready to repair the unit as per company policy, so there is no deficiency on the part of answering opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1/1 to Ex.R1/2 and closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R1 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that as per the reply filed by opposite party No.2 itself, the complainant had approached the service centre on various dates e.g. 02.05.2016, 30.05.2016, 06.06.2016, 20.06.2016, 22.08.2016 and 03.12.2016 and the mobile was repaired by the OPs. It is also revealed that the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 21.01.2016 and the defects appeared just after three months repeatedly w.e.f. May 2016 to December 2016. As per job sheets placed on record as Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 there were issues like ‘switch off, touch issue, hangs up’ etc. which could not be removed by the OPs despite their repeated repairs which proves deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and OPs are liable to refund the price of mobile set.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and it is directed that OP No.1 & 2 shall jointly and severally refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.11125/-(Rupees eleven thousand one hundred twenty five only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 14.12.2016 till its realisation. Opposite party No.1 & 2 shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. As per the receipt Ex.C5, the mobile set has already been deposited with the service centre i.e. opposite party No.3.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
9. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
01.10.2018.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
