DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.

                                 ………………

Presents:-

1. Sri P.Samantara, President.
2. Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
3. Smt. S.Rath, Member.

Dated, Bolangir the 28^th  day of October 2016.

C.C.No.41 of  2016.

Ramesh Chandra Tripathy,age-51 years son of Lalit Mohan Tripathy.

Village- Chiminibhati Pada, Bolangir Town, P.O/P.S & Dist-

Bolangir.

                                                                  ..                        ..             Complainant.

                        -Versus-

1.The LAVA International Ltd,A-56, Sector-64, Noida-201301 (U.P).

2.Sobhakar Meher, son of Nanda Kishor Meher, Dealer,

   Mobile Store,Daily Market Road, Bolangir Town,

   P.O/P.S & Dist- Bolangir.

3.Abhimanyu Bishi,Repair/Replace in chargeCellcom Mobile Services,

   At- Near Private Bu8s Stand, P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.

                                                                  ..                         ..            Opp.Parties.

Adv. for the Complainant- Self.

Adv. for the O.P No.1      -Sri U.Sahoo & S.S.Chaini.

Adv.for the O.P.2 & 3      -None.

                                                                   Date of filing of the case- 25.07.2016

                                                                   Date of order                  -   28.10.2016

JUDGMENT.

Sri P.Samantara, President.

                The complainant has purchased on lava brand mobile set of Model No-KKT UNO plus from Mobile store Daily Market Road, Bolangir, against consideration of Rs 1250/- on dt.21.04.2016 which covers one year warranty on the product.

2.            The handset shows defect in permanent display of head phone symbol and loudspeaker problem. In rectification same job sheet issued by the authorized service centre respectively on dt.25.04.2016, dt.10.05.2016 and dt.11.07.2016. In rectification the fault did not removed persists till the day. So the complainant in disgust made option for replacement, refund and sustaining repair. But the repair is not sustaining any more. By such unconceivable circumstances and the job sheet admission, prayed a new mobile handset be supplied because of continuous harassment and mental agony. The complainant as evidenced and relied on original job sheets and purchase mobile receipt along with affidavit.

3.              On getting notice, the manufacturer named Lava International Ltd, India herein after known as O.P.1 appear and contended the case is misconceived, reflect no cause of action and averments are self contradictory, statements are false, baseless, concocted, thereby not maintainable and did not warrants any relief as sought for.

4.             Again in pursuant to notice, the authorized service centre appeared and made the version, the handset has been repaired repeatedly, even replaced a new mother board but complainant refused to receive the repaired set. It is submitted as the handset has already been serviced  and the O.P.3 has rectified the fault so, no case remain against the service centre rather be dismissed.

5.            The seller, dealer of lava mobile store neither appeared nor made any version.

6.            Heard the complainant and other side O.Ps at length.

7.            Respective submissions undisputebly made admission the purchase has been effected and the hand set riddle with faults of unremoved nature.

8.            In the best effort the service centre has replaced the mother board and the complainant submission made more substantive that the headphone symbol and audible fineness fault is still persists. The defect raised by the complainant is admitted in view of the job sheet endorsement. Even the service centre admitted and made attempt to rectify the problem but incomplete, imperfection and manner of performance on the part of the O.Ps is not satisfactory as per the law. Again warranty on the product is ample and extensively approved one in absence imperfection in the product ample justify refund or replacement in a brand new handset, which has not consumed in continuously over months in a year.

9.           Our same view is fortified by the Judgments that we take into reliance.

(i)It is the duty of manufacturer/dealer to repair defects in a product during warranty period within a reasonable time- Krishna Kumar Saha Vs. Manager Jai Shri Electronics,

2010(1) CPR 149 (Chhatisgarh).

(ii)Manufacturer cannot wash off its hands after selling a defective vehicle- Susil Kumar Vs.Tata Motors Ltd.- 2011(3) CPR 73 (H.P.).

10.         In view of the above noted facts, admissions and submissions we conclude, the fault in the product is not removed and persists till the date. Non rectification in un-satisfactory solution well amounts to  deficiency in service and no one can resiles from such responsibility. Hence O.Ps are liable for same.

                                      ORDER.

                   The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to refund the price of the product as it purchased in exchange of the defective mobile at petitioner end along with Rs 300/- as compensation and legal expenses incurred within 30 days .Non compliance will attract an interest @ 9% P.A. on the entire amount till realization.

(ii)              The O.P.No.2 is liable to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs 500/- towards non adherence to the call of the Forum.

ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT THIS THE 28^TH   DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

                        (S.Rath)                    (G.K.Rath)                                      (P.Samantara)

                        MEMBER.                MEMBER.                                          PRESIDENT