Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/282

Sukhwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

videocon Ind. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                         Complaint No: 282 dated 01.05.2018                                                                           Date of decision: 26.11.2018

 

Sukhvinder Singh s/o S.Bahadur Singh r/o House No.2978, B-34, New Tagore Nagar, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana-141001, Punjab.                                                                                                                                             ..…Complainant                                                   Versus       

Managing Director, Videocon Industries Limited, 14KM Stone, Aurangabad-Paithan Road, Village Chittegaon, Taluka-Paithan, District Aurangabad-431105,Maharashtra.

Opposite party

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                                                                     SH. VINOD GULATI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         In person                                

For OP                           :         Ex-parte.

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

1.                Complainant purchased one Videocon Smart phone of model No.V502430 from dealer M/s Dev Electronics on 29.12.2016 by paying an amount of Rs.5500/-. One year warranty was provided along with warranty on battery for six months. Battery of phone started taking more than 10 hours for charging and as such, complainant contacted the customer care of OP’s service centre on 27.6.2017 and job card was prepared. That mobile was forwarded to OP’s office in Chandigarh because spare parts were to be dispatched from that office to the service centre in Ludhiana. Two days thereafter, complainant noticed the smart phone not switching on and used to turn off automatically. Complainant         visited the service centre of OP for disclosing about the second problem and new job card was not prepared on excuse that first job was still pending. Though complainant kept on visiting OP, but OP did not send the replacement of battery to its service centre. Customer care of OP was contacted by complainant, but lame excuses were got with disclosure that they have escalated the issue to the concerned department. Later on complainant got information from customer care that model in question have been stopped by OP and as such, replacement of battery not possible. Email dated 8.8.2017 was sent, to which, reply dated 11.8.2017 was received from OP. Inconvenience was regretted through this reply. Complainant was forced to buy another smart phone of Videocon from another dealer of OP and then got knowledge as if battery of earlier purchased model was of same model as of second smart phone purchased by the complainant from M/s Jain Brothers, Shiv Complex, Basement Market, Gur Mandi, Ludhiana. Though, OP could have easily send the battery and repair the phone, but OP choose not to do so and that is why by claiming deficiency in service on the part of OP, prayer made for directing OP to refund of Rs.5500/- and to pay compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.94,400/-.

2.                  OP is ex-parte in this case.

3.                Complainant in ex-parte evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments of complainant heard. Records gone through carefully.

5.                Complainant has produced invoice Ex.A1 for proving that he purchased the Videocon Smart phone from Dev Electronics, Ludhiana on 29.12.2016 by paying the price of Rs.5500/-. Battery model number with other details of battery is given in Ex.A2. Complainant purchased another              mobile phone from Jain Brothers of Videocon itself on 30.6.2017 by paying price of Rs.5500/- through invoice Ex.C3 and battery model number of this second purchased mobile is mentioned in Ex.A4. Battery model number mentioned in Ex.A2 and Ex.A4 is the same i.e. 1100131065 and as such submission advanced by complainant certainly has force that battery with same model number was available with OP even on 30.6.2017, when he purchased the second mobile phone. Despite availability of battery of same model, the battery of earlier mobile phone has not been changed, albeit complainant entered into email correspondence with OP through its service care centre.

6.                Contents of affidavit Ex.CA of complainant and of complaint discloses that though battery of first purchased mobile phone on 29.12.2016 was having warranty of six months, but same started giving trouble due to non- charging of same for more than 10 hours. Even copy of limited warranty clause produced to show that warranty of mobile phone was for one year, but for accessories including battery, charger etc was for six months. As defect in the battery charging in the mobile phone in question occurred and that is why, complainant took the mobile phone to the service centre of OP on 27.6.2017 i.e. two days prior to lapse of warranty period of battery. However, the battery was not available at the service centre and that is why request was forwarded to Chandigarh Office of OP is the claim of complainant put forth through complaint and submitted affidavit and those assertions are corroborated by email Ex.A5 dated 8.8.2017 sent by complainant to OP. In Ex.A5 itself, it has been mentioned that request to Chandigarh office was forwarded on 27.6.2017, but despite that after lapse of 42 days, new battery of mobile has not been dispatched to the service centre namely Saig Service Centre, Ludhiana, despite issue of many reminders. So, contents of Ex.A5 establishes that though assurance was given to complainant for replacement of battery after fetching from Chandigarh office, but the same has not been provided for rectifying the defect of charging within warranty period.

7.                Even through email Ex.A5, complainant called upon OP by claiming that mobile has started another problem of automatically turn off and not switching on, due to which, he had to purchase another smart phone. Some message from Videocon Care centre was received on 11.8.2017 by complainant, through which, regret for inconvenience was expressed. Copy of that email dated 11.8.2017 is also part of Ex.A5. So, it is obvious that problem projected by complainant regarding battery and switching off was duly attended by sending reply dated 11.8.2017 by OP, but despite that further action has not been taken. As the assured services within warranty period not provided and promise for redressing the problem remained farce and as such, virtually OP, the manufacturer adopted unfair trade practice.

8.                In view of adoption of unfair trade practice of OP and not redressing the genuine grievance of complainant, complainant certainly entitled for refund of price of Rs.5500/-. However, complainant used the mobile phone in question without problem for two days less than six months and as such, he is not entitled for any interest, even though he is entitled for due amount of compensation for mental agony and harassment and also to litigation expenses.

9.                Therefore, as a sequel to the above discussion, complaint allowed ex-parte by directing OP to refund Rs.5500/- (price of smart phone in question) to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which, complainant will be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. today till payment. However, direction also issued to complainant to deposit the defective mobile phone in question with the service centre of OP named by OP itself in Ludhiana within 15 days of receipt of communication by complainant from OP. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP. Payment of awarded amount of compensation and litigation expenses be also made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which, complainant will be entitled to interest @6% per annum on these amounts from today till payment. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                     (Vinod Gulati)                                         (G.K. Dhir)                                            Member                                                           President

Announced in Open Forum                                                             Dated:26.11.2018                                                                                           Gurpreet Sharma.