Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 79.
Instituted on : 06.02.2017.
Decided on : 20.03.2018.
Bharat s/o Deewan Singh R/o Diwan Battery House Sonipat Road, Rothak IInd Address: H.No.747/2, Pardhana Mohalla, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Lava International Ltd.(Mobiles), LAVA Mobiles, A-47, Sector 58 Noida, UP India-201301 Through its Managing Director service be effective through the authorised service center(O.P.No.3).
- Areva System Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Warehouse 10 Bigha Biswa Village Hiran Kudna Delhi 110041 service be effective through its Incharge/Authorized person.
- Shree Hari Computer Solutions, Authorised service center of LAVA Mobiles, Plot No.189, Cue Huda Complex Rohtak, service be effected through its Incharge/Authorised person.
- Snap Deal.com, Online Shopping, 362, 363 ASF center, Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area Phase 4, Gurgaon 122001. Through its Managing Director.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Nitin Batra, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Vijay Pal Gehlaut, Advocate for opposite party No.4.
Opposite party No.2 & 3 exparte.
ORDER
RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased a mobile set of LAVA international Ltd. company having modal No. LAVA X28 amounting to Rs.5193/- from online through Snapdeal site i.e. OP No.4 through OP No.2 on dated 22.01.2017 vide invoice bill no.SF340/16-17/10820 with one year warranty given by opposite party No.2 & 4. That after sometime of its purchase, problems appeared in the mobile set and complainant visited the service centre i.e. opposite party no.3 many times but despite installation of new software, mobile is not working. The set was deposited with the company for sending the same to the company for swap purpose but till date the mobile set is lying with the OP No.3 with so many faults i.e. camera problem, networking, external memory problem, automatic off etc. That complainant is facing many problems since its purchase and as such he requested the OPs to replace the set but to no effect. Hence this complaint with prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of mobile set Rs.5193/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to O.P.No. 3 received back duly served but none appeared on behalf of OP No.3. Notice sent to opposite party No.2 through registered cover not received back in any form. As such opposite party No.2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.03.2017 of this Forum. Opposite party no.1 filed its written reply submitting therein that the complainant in regards to his complaint has approached the service centre on 27.01.2017 for slow processing problem and the issue was resolved. After that complainant approached on 30.01.2017 reporting the camera problem and after checking it was found that the unit was found damaged due to mishandling and complainant was told that the unit shall be repaired on chargeable basis but the complainant did not agree for the same. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party No.4 in its reply has submitted that the product purchased by the complainant has not been sold by the opposite party No.4 and opposite party no.4 has no role in providing the warranty of product sold by the seller through the website of OP No.4. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed the evidence. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 and closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.4 has tendered affidavit Ex.DW1/A and closed his evidence.
5. Arguments heard and file perused.
6. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 22.01.2017 for a sum of Rs.5193/- as is proved from the bill Ex.C1 and as per job sheet Ex.C2 there was problem of ‘camera not working’. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant he approached the service centre for repair of his mobile phone so many times for some defects like camera problem, networking, external memory problem, automatic off etc. and the same is not rebutted by the service centre as it has not come present despite service of notice. As the defects appeared just within 10 days of is purchase within warranty period and the same could not be repaired despite repeated repairs. Complainant is not satisfied and since he has lost faith in the product of company, the complaint is allowed with refund of price of mobile set.
7. Accordingly it is directed that complainant shall hand over the mobile set to the opposite parties and in turn opposite party No.1 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set of Rs.5193/- (Rupees five thousand one hundred ninety three only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.06.02.2017 till its realization and 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.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
20.03.2018.
................................................
Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
