BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.143 of 2015

Date of Instt. 07.04.2015

Date of Decision :24.7.2015

Sunik Malik son of Darshan Kumar Malik, R/o B-III/202, Jain Colony, Opp.Sat Nagar, Near Gazi Gulla Road, Jalandhar City, Punjab-144001.

..........Complainant Versus

1. XOLO Company (Owned by Lava International) through its Director/General Manager/Manager/Representative, XOLO Head Office:-A-56, Sector-64, Noida-201301, Uttar Pradesh, India.

2. Bunty Mobile World, Shop No.29, Backside Anand Palace Market, Near Baba lal Dwara Mandir, Partap Bagh, Jalandhar City, Punjab-144001.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Aditya Jain Adv., counsel for OP No.1.

Opposite party No.2 exparte.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant bought XOLO Q600 mobile handset from Mobile House at the price of Rs.8000/-. After 5-6 months of phone usage, he found that there was irregular disconnection of calls while calling from SIM-1 slot of the phone. He visited XOLO service centre and told them the problem faced by him. They prepared the job card and said they will try to update the operating system in 1-2 days and if the problem persists and they will send the phone to company headquarter for repair which would further take 15-20 days. After 2-3 days, he called opposite party No.2 and inquired about his phone. Opposite party No.2 told that phone needs to be sent to XOLO company headquarter for repair as they are unable to resolve the problem locally. Since other SIM slot No.2 of his phone was perfectly fine and as he was not having any alternate phone that's why he asked opposite party No.2 to give back his phone. After receiving phone from opposite party No.2, he found that hearing speaker and ringer speaker of his phone were not working alongwith the earlier described problem. Again he went back to opposite party No.2 and asked them about these new problems which occurred in his phone. In their reply, they alleged that he has deliberately damaged the phone after getting it checked from other mobile repairing shop and after lot of arguments between him and opposite party No.2, opposite party No.2 again checked his phone and told him that the phone needs to be sent to opposite party No.1 for repair. They prepared the job sheet on 20.9.2014 and told him that it will be repaired within 15-20 days. He called opposite party No.2 after 20 days to enquire about his phone and did not get any favourable response inspite of his repeated reminders on regular basis. Most of the times, opposite party No.2 did not pick his call and even if by mistake they took his call the answer was that his phone will come by next Saturday or Monday. On 10.11.2014 opposite party No.2 called him on phone and said that his phone is dead and opposite party No.1 will provide him a new phone. So kindly get his phone from them. When he went to opposite party No.2, he received a old mobile handset wrapped in paper (Job Card) with a different IMEI number on it. Opposite party No.2 tried to lure him to take mobile set by saying that this is new. But the condition of the mobile handset was not like the new one as well as not like his original mobile handset which he had given to them for repair. Then he told opposite party No.1 about his complaint number and sequence of events that happened with opposite party No.2 through mail. On 17.11.2014, he visited again to opposite party No.2 as they called him to talk about the mobile handset. Opposite party No.2 again tried to lure him to accept the provided mobile handset. He again refused to accept the mobile handset. Thereafter, opposite party No.2 talked to him rudely and said do whatever he want to do. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for refund of cost of his mobile i.e Rs.8000/-. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, pleading that the complainant in regards to his complaint regarding the mobile has approached the service centre with some issue in the unit at the service centre of the company on 20.9.2014 for the first and the last time after almost 10 months from the date of purchase as the unit was purchased on 3.11.2013 and the solution was provided to the complainant. But the complainant being adamant and demanded refund to which the complainant was told that the unit of the complainant is repairable so it can not be replaced with the new one and the demand for replacement is not genuine and the same is against the company policy and did not come forward to collect his mobile. The opposite parties contacted several times on the mobile number of the complainant i.e 9464515811 to collect his mobile but the complainant refused to collect his mobile. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Upon notice, opposite party No.2 did not appear and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 alongwith copies of documents Ex.CA to Ex.CG and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for opposite party No.1.

7. It is not disputed that complainant purchased the mobile handset in question vide retail invoice dated 2.11.2013 for Rs.8000/-. According to the complainant after 5-6 months of usage of the phone, he found irregular disconnection of calls while calling from SIM-1 slot of the phone and thereafter he visited opposite party No.2 and it prepared job card and when he enquired about his phone from opposite party No.2 after few days, it told him that the mobile handset has been sent to the company i.e opposite party No.1. Further according to the complainant, when he received back the mobile handset from opposite party No.2 he found the new problems in it and again visited opposite party No.2 and they prepared job sheet on 20.9.2014 and told him that it will be repaired within 15-20 days. Further according to the complainant, opposite party No.2 tried to give an old mobile handset having different IMEI number to him which he refused to accept and till date mobile handset is lying with opposite party No.2. On the other hand, according to opposite party No.1, the complainant visited the service centre of the company on 20.9.2014 for the first and the last time after almost 10 months from the date of purchase of the handset and solution was provided to the complainant but he demanded refund but he was told that handset is repairable. Further according to opposite party No.1, the opposite parties contacted the complainant on his mobile number i.e 9464515811 to collect his mobile but he refused to collect the same. We have carefully considered the version of both the parties. The complainant has produced only one job sheet dated 20.9.2014 Ex.CB and according to opposite party No.1 also the complainant visited the service centre of the company for first time on 20.9.2014. The complainant has not produced any earlier job sheet. The handset was purchased by him on 2.11.2013. So it means that the handset was working properly for about 10 months and as such it can not be said that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset of the complainant. In case there was manufacturing defect in the mobile handset of the complainant then it would not have work properly for about 10 months. In para 1 of the complaint, the complainant has pleaded that after 5-6 months of usage of the phone, he found irregular disconnection of calls while calling from SIM-1 slot of the phone. So even it this version of the complainant is accepted, it means that mobile handset of the complainant was working properly for 5-6 months and in case there was any manufacturing defect in it then it would not have worked for 5-6 months properly. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 contended that the mobile handset of the complainant is lying in repaired condition and he may collect the same from opposite party No.2. Although counsel for the opposite party No.1 has contended that mobile handset of the complainant is lying in repaired condition but complainant has refused to collect the same but in written reply, opposite party No.1 has not specifically pleaded so and on the other hand, it has pleaded that the complainant was told that unit of the complainant is repairable, so it can not be replaced with new one. Even if the opposite parties have repaired the mobile handset of the complainant, it took considerable time in doing so. The mobile handset was booked by opposite party No.2 on 20.9.2014. The complainant has placed on record email dated 25.11.2014 Ex.CG sent to the complainant wherein it is mentioned that they request him to kindly re-visit their service centre and share the new work order number so that they may able to provide resolution further. So it means that till 25.11.2014 the mobile handset of the complainant has not been repaired. In the written reply opposite party No.1 has stated that the solution was proved to the complainant but the complainant being adamant demanded refund. In the written reply opposite party No.1 has not specifically mentioned as to what solution was provided to the complainant. So in the above circumstances it is clear cut deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties are directed to give the mobile handset of the complainant in fully repaired and working condition within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and for this purpose the complainant shall visit the service centre i.e opposite party No.2. In case the mobile handset of the complainant is not repairable then opposite parties are directed to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one of the same make and model and in case same model is not available then to refund its price to him. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- in lump sum on the account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jaspal Singh Bhatia

24.07.2015 Member President