Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 50.
Instituted on : 23.01.2017.
Decided on : 06.07.2017.
Sh.Vinod Kumar s/o Sh.Jai Pal Singh R/o V.P.O.Sanghi, District Rohtak Age-35 years.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Proprietor, Shri Hari Computer Solutions, HUDA Complex, Near S.C.F.No.24, 1st Floor, Above Om Sai Pathology Centre, Rohtak-124001(Haryana).
- Manager Registered Office, Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd. Fern Icon, Level 2, Doddenakundi Village,. Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, K.R.Puram, Hobli Banglore-560037(Karnataka).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Jitender Singh. Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a Mobile phone bearing IMEI No.867296026674735 for a sum of Rs.18500/- vide Invoice No.AT/0747 dated 16.06.2016. It is averred that opposite party No.2 is manufacturer and opposite party no.1 is authorized service center of opposite party no.1. It is averred that the complainant was facing touch problems with the said handset in the first month of its purchase alongwith other issues of hanging, battery, software heating etc. and he sent the said mobile to the opposite party No.2 on 26.07.2016 and the technician kept the said device under job sheet No.SN0IN06001607260002 and replaced the touch panel of the said device and returned it back on 30.07.2016 and assured the complainant that it works fine now. It is averred that complainant faced above said problems again and he contacted the authorized service center of opposite party at Sonipat on 22.09.2016 and they just updated the software and formatted it and refused to provide job sheet. It is averred that complainant again faced above said issues and went to the opposite party no.2 but no response was received despite his repeated e-mails dated 12.10.2016, 13.10.2016, 16.10.2016, 18.10.2016, 23.10.2016 4.11.2016 and 08.11.2016 and on 30.11.2016 opposite party no.1 again just formatted the said mobile and failed to sort out the issue. It is averred that despite repeated requests of the complainant and repairs by the opposite party the defect could not be removed by the opposite parties. It is averred that complainant sent a notice to the opposite parties but to no effect. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of mobile set alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party no.1 received back duly served and notice sent to opposite party No.2 through registered post but none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1 & 2 and as such opposite parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.03.2017 of this Forum.
3. Complainant led evidence in support of his case.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C21 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that as per bill Ex.C1 dated 16.06.2016 the complainant had purchased the mobile set for a sum of Rs.18500/-. The contention of ld. counsel for the complainant is that the handset in question was defective from the very beginning and the same could not be repaired by the opposite parties despite his repeated requests during the warranty period. To prove his case complainant has placed on record copy of service order Ex.C2 dated 26.07.2016, copy of emails & documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C21.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the mobile in question was purchased by the complainant on 16.06.2016 and the defect in the mobile set firstly appeared on 26.07.2016 i.e. just after 1 month of its purchase. As per complaint, affidavit and job sheets placed on record, the mobile set could not be repaired by the opposite parties despite repeated complaints by the complainant during the warranty period. It is also on record that opposite parties did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding defect in the mobile set stands proved. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in III(2008)CPJ 98 titled Pahnawa Boutique & Anr. Vs. Shaifi Verma Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Complaint fully supported by affidavit-No basis to reject complainant’s version-O.P.failed to contest proceedings despite notice-Order of Forum allowing the ex-parte complaint upheld”, as per 1998(3)CCC 65(P & H) Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sardari Lal Vs. Kartar Singh & Ors. has held that: Non-appearance of a party as a witness in the suit-Gives rise to a strong presumption against him”. We have also placed reliance upon the law cited in 2014(1)CLT588 titled Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. & Others Hon’ble Delhi State Commission has held that: “In the event when a product is found to be defective at the very beginning it is always better to order for the refund of the amount because replacement of the product will never satisfied the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product-if the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and if develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous”, as per II (2009) CPJ 240 titled as Jagdish Prasad Khandelwal vs. Partap Chandra Behera & Ors., Hon’ble Orissa State Commission, Cuttak has held that: “Dealer-Liability-Manufacturing defect-dealer requested manufacturer to replace effective goods having sufficient discharged his responsibility, dealer, cannot be made liable for deficiency in service order against dealer set aside in appeal-manufacturer alone held liable to replace defective goods or to refund price thereof”
8. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that opposite party no.2 i.e. manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set to the complainant. As per the statement made on 08.05.2017 the mobile set in question is in the possession of complainant. As such complainant shall hand over the mobile in question to the opposite parties and in turn the opposite party no.2 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.18500/-(Rupees eighteen thousand five hundred only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.23.01.2017 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
06.07.2017.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
....................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
……………………………..
Ved Pal, Member
