BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 166 of 2015
Date of Institution : 22.9.2015
Date of decision : 13.10.2016
Jaideep Garg son of Sh.Ramji Dass Garg, resident of Old Court Colony, Sirsa, District Sirsa. ……Complainant.
Versus.
1. WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. through its Proprietor/ Partner No.42/1 & 43, Kacherakanahalli village Jadigenalalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore- 560067.
2. Asus Technology Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at 402 4th Floor, Supreme Chambers, 17/18, Shah Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Mumbai- 400058 through its Managing Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………… ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.S.K. Dhandal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. A.S.Kalra, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Sh. Pankaj Singal, Advocate for the opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Brief facts of the complaint are that on 12.05.2015, the complainant purchased a new Asus Zen phone model ZE551ML from opposite party no.1 through flipkart.com. vide invoice dated 12.5.2015 and paid Rs.18,999/- to flipkart.com. The op no.1 had given one year warranty of the mobile to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant started using the said mobile but to his surprise soon after its purchase, the same started giving troubles such as speaker of the mobile stopped working and on-off button also stopped working. The complainant contacted the service centre of op no.2 at Hisar on 28.8.2015 but they refused to remove the defect within period of warranty. The complainant also informed the customer care of op no.2 about the defects but they also did not pay any heed despite several complaints which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of ops. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, op no.1 replied that op no.1 is a registered seller on the website and sells products of other manufacturers under their respective trade marks through the website. However, as a goodwill gesture the op no.1 provides 30 days replacement warranty to its customers and it is an admitted fact that complainant did not face any problem in the product within 30 days. If at all there arise any manufacturing defect, then op no.2 is only responsible for the same and therefore, complaint against op no.1 is liable to be dismissed.
3. Opposite party no.2 i.e. manufacturer in its written statement has denied the contents of complaint in toto and it is submitted that complainant has not approached the op no.2 regarding the technical issues of his unit as mentioned in the complaint. The complainant has not furnished any relevant details or communications from which he can show that he has approached the op no.2 but was not attended by them. The op no.2 maintains the record of all the customers and their technical queries. The complainant has preferred this complaint instead of approaching the op no.2.
4. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of invoice Ex.CA and postal receipt Ex.CB. On the other hand, op no.2 tendered affidavit Ex.R1. OP no.1 tendered affidavit Ex.R2.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. The complainant has alleged to have approached the service centre of opposite party no.2 situated at Hisar on 28.8.2015 i.e. within warranty period with the defects in the mobile in question but opposite party no.2 has not placed any affidavit of official of their service centre situated at Hisar that complainant did not approach them with the defects in the mobile in question. Simple denial is no denial in the eyes of law. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he has testified all the facts so set out by him in his complaint. So the version of the complainant that defective mobile has been supplied by the opposite parties has to be believed. The op no.1 has not placed on file any document to show the 30 days replacement warranty was provided by op no.1.
7. Thus, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to replace the mobile in question with a new one of same description or with a mobile of equivalent value within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:13.10.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
