Haryana

Kurukshetra

11/2018

Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

TVS ELec - Opp.Party(s)

Atul Mittal

23 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.11 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution: 12.01.2018.

                                                     Date of decision:23.05.2018.

Suresh Kumar son of Sh. Darbara Ram Saini, Fancy Tailor, R/o Park Road, Pehowa.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. TVS Electronics Limited, C/o 4^th Floor, Plot No.193-197 & 254-258, 137 & 248-249, Jigni Link Road, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Banglore-562106.
2. MALHOTRA MOBILE SERVICE, VIDHATA COMPLEX OPPOSITE NEW BUS STAND KURUKSHETRA.
3. XIOMY TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD., 8^TH FLOOR, TOWER NO.1, UMIYA BUSINESS BAY MARATHAHALLI SARJAPUR OUTER RING ROAD BANGLORE-560103 KARNATAKA INDIA. 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

Present:     Sh. Atul Mittal, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Ops No.1 & 2 exparte.

                Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for the OP.No.3.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Suresh Kumar against TVS Electronics Ltd. and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a mobile set from the Op No.1 through online for a sum of Rs.8999/- vide invoice No.148576629884618705 dt.30.01.2017.  It is alleged that from the very beginning, the said mobile set became defective with the problems of display, touch problem, restarting problem, FM radio and voice etc.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.2 regarding the defective mobile set but the Op no.2 refused to repair the mobile set.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to refund the amount of Rs.8999/- or to replace the mobile set with the new one and further to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.3 appeared before this Forum, whereas Ops No.1 & 2 did not appear and opted to proceed exparte vide order dt. 26.02.2018.  Op No.3 contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the complainant has not submitted any evidence such as a job-sheet in connection with any alleged visits to the authorized service centre of the Op No.3.  The complainant has not provided any evidence regarding manufacturing defects in the product.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Ld. counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and document Ex.C1 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. 

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             From the invoice, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 30.01.2017 for the sale consideration of Rs.8999/-.  The grievance of the complainant is that the mobile set became defective within the guarantee period with the problems of display, touch problem, restarting problem, FM radio and voice etc.  The complainant has supported his versions by filing affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and document Ex.C1.  In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced with the new one from the Op No.3.

7.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OP No.3 to replace the hand set of the complainant with the new one of the same model.  The complainant is directed to deposit the old hand set alongwith bill and accessories with the service center of the company.  The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.3.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:23.05.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member