Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 125.
Instituted on : 17.03.2015.
Decided on : 10.03.2016.
Manjeet R/o Bag Wali Gali Vijay Nagar, Near Jhajjar Chungi, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Spice Mobile Phone Company Mobile Hand set Division Ltd. S.Global Knowledge Park, 19 A & 19B Noida-201301(U.P.).
- Authorised Service Centre Radhe Radhe Communication, First Floor Gopal Complex Petrol Pump, Chhotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak Ph. No.8950379181.
……….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: Complainant in person.
Sh. Kunal Juneja Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party no.2 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 on 20.07.2014 from Deepak Communication, Hira Market Delhi. It is averred that just after a week of purchase it started giving problem in Display and touch. It is averred that complainant contacted the authorized service centre of the company i.e. opposite party no.2 on 28.07.2014 and left his mobile for repairing and the service centre gave the mobile back after two months. It is averred that after 15 days the same problem appeared in the mobile and the complainant again contacted the opposite party no.2 but again after repair, other problems like scratches on the screen, JPS System and Battery etc. appeared in the mobile phone and lastly it was told by the opposite party no.2 that his phone was physically damaged but despite repeated repairs of the opposite party no.2, the defect could not be removed by the opposite party. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the mobile set with a new one and to pay compensation on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 appeared and filed its written statement submitting therein that the complainant approached to ASC twice but he didn’t attach single job sheet which assists his allegations that he approached to the ASC for rectification of defects in the handset. It is averred that complainant deposited his handset for repair. On thorough diagnosis of the handset, it was found that TOUCH PAD OF THE HANDSET WAS DAMAGED. Since touch pad was broken, the handset was declared ‘Warranty void’ under the limited warranty conditions. The complainant was accordingly intimated. The complainant was asked to deposit the requisite amount for repairing the handset but the complainant refused to pay these charges and accordingly the handset was returned to the complainant. It is averred that complainant is not entitled to claim or to recover any amount from the answering opposite party. As such it is prayed that the present complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs. However opposite party no.2 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.03.2016 of this Forum.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 made a statement that the written statement filed on its behalf be read in evidence.
5. We have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 20.07.2014 for a sum of Rs.10500/- of Spice Company from Deepak Communication, Delhi. It is also not disputed that as per job sheet Ex.C2 dated 27.01.2015 there was a problem of GPS does not show exact position, mobile network & handset heatup & hang” and the warranty type is “Under Warranty”. As per the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant the set in question was not repaired by the opposite parties inspite of the fact that the set was in warranty period. On the other hand opposite party no.1 as per its written reply has submitted that since touch pad was broken, the handset was declared ‘Warranty void’ under the limited warranty conditions. But to prove its contention opposite party has not placed on file any documentary proof.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the mobile in question was purchased by the complainant on 20.07.2014 and the defect in the mobile set appeared during the warranty period and the same could not be repaired/replaced by the opposite parties. In this regard reliance has been placed 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”. It is also on record that opposite party no.2 did not appear despite notice and as such it is presumed that they have nothing to say in the matter and as such all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite party no.2 stands proved. In view of the aforesaid law which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that it is a fit case where the refund of price is justified. The set in question is already in the possession of service centre i.e. opposite party no.2.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set. As such it is directed opposite party No.1 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set i.e Rs.10250/-(Rupees ten thousand two hundred fifty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 17.03.2015 till its 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. 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:
10.03.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
