BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Complaint Case no.343 of  2017     

                                                          Date of Institution:          20.12.2017

                                                          Date of Decision:     30.11.2018

Anish Kumar Bansal son of Shri Dhanraj, resident of Ward no.12, Phephana, 1 KNN, Hanumangarh Phephana, Rajasthan.

                                                                                  ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

1 Zoom Centre, Shop no.17/20, Opp. Pimple Pedia New Market, Margao, Goa-403-601 through its Authorized person/Incharge/Authorized Signatory of the said showroom.

2. Arz Enterprises, Gali Lekh Singh Wali, Shiv Chowk, Sirsa, through its Authorized person/Incharge/Authorized Signatory of the said showroom.

                              ……… Opposite parties.

          Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT

SH.  ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. Anuj Ganeriwala, Advocate for complainant.                                                                  

                 Opposite parties no.1&2 exparte.

                   Opposite party no.3 given up.                                     

ORDER

                   In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one mobile set make i-bail Audi 5.5H Weber 4G from opposite party no.1 against cash amount of Rs.7200/- vide invoice No.1662 dated 10.11.2016 with one year guarantee/ warrantee. It is further averred that just after few months of its purchase, the mobile started creating problem as it was heating, hanging and there was problem of sound disturbance, auto shut off & start and it also occurred the problem of battery backup and many times the mobile set gone out of order and also suffered problem of automatic off and became useless. The complainant on detecting this major defect in the mobile set approached to the op no.2 and lodged a complaint and op no.2 retained the mobile set for 2-3 days and after repair as well as installing the new software returned the same, but the same problem occurred again and again. The complainant again approached the op no.2 and registered a complaint for which the op no.2 on 13.10.2017 again repaired the mobile set of the complainant, but the problem in the mobile set could not be removed out and the op no.2 told the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set and further assured that the complainant would get replacement of the mobile set from the company within a very short period as it is the legal liability of the manufacturing company to replace the same as mobile set is having manufacturing defect. It is further averred that when after lapse of time, the complainant again approached the op no.2 and requested for new set, they did not get replaced the mobile set and since 13.10.2017, the mobile set of the complainant is with the op no.2. After that the complainant took more number of rounds to the op no.2 for getting his grievance redressed, but the op no.2 at last put off the matter by stating that there is major manufacturing defect in the mobile set, which cannot be removed in any way and thus refused to compensate the complainant. Due to the defects in the mobile set and non functioning thereof, the complainant has suffered much financial loss and harassment because since the day of detecting the defects in the mobile, the complainant has been taking the rounds to the op no.2.  Opposite party no.3 is manufacturer of the above mobile, op no.1 is authorized Dealer and op no.2 is service centre of the company, hence the ops are jointly and severally liable for the deficiencies in services towards the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite parties no.1 and 2 did not appear and were proceeded against exparte.  Opposite party no.3 i.e. manufacturer of the mobile has been given up by learned counsel for complainant.

3.                The complainant has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1. He has also tendered in evidence bill Ex.C2 and job card Ex.C3.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have perused the case file carefully.

5.                The perusal of the record reveals that complainant has furnished affidavit Ex.CW1 in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also placed on record bill Ex.C2 and job card Ex.C3. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased one mobile set make iball Audi 5.5H Weber 4G from op no.1, against cash amount of Rs. 7200/- vide Invoice No. 1662 dated 10.11.2016. At the time of purchase of above mobile, the op no.1 assured the complainant that company has given guarantee/warrantee of one year for any manufacturing defect in the set and in case of any defect mobile will be exchanged with a new one without any cost.  The complainant has specifically deposed that just after few months of its purchase, the mobile started creating problem as it was heating, hanging and there was problem of sound disturbance, auto shut off & start and it also occurred the problem of battery backup and many times the mobile set gone out of order and the mobile set suffered problem of automatic off and mobile set of the complainant rendered useless. The complainant on detecting this major defect in the mobile set approached to the op no.2 and lodged a complaint and op no.2 retained the mobile set for 2-3 days and after repair as well as installing the new software returned the same, but the same problem occurred again and again. Hence the complainant again approached the op no.2 and registered a complaint for which the op no.2 on 13.10.2017 again repaired the mobile set of the complainant, but the problem in the mobile set could not be removed out and the op no.2 told the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set and further assured that he would get replaced the mobile set from the company within a very short period. He has further deposed that since 13.10.2017, the mobile set of the complainant is with the op no.2. Since the opposite parties no. 1&2 did not come forward to contest the complaint and were proceeded against exparte, op no.3 has been given up by learned counsel for the complainant vide making separate statement, as such evidence led by the complainant goes as unchallenged and unrebutted. Hence, the complainant has been able to prove his case.

6.                In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the ops no.1 and 2 to carry out necessary repairs in the mobile set of the complainant and to make it defect free even by replacing parts, if any, without costs within 15 days of the production of the mobile set by the complainant. In case it is found by the Engineer of the ops no.1 and 2  that mobile in question is not repairable, the ops no.1 and 2 shall be liable to replace the mobile in question with a new one of same price or in alternate to refund the price of the mobile within further period of 15 days. We also direct the ops no.1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. Ops no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                                               President,

Dated:30.11.2018.                                      Member                District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                      Redressal Forum, Sirsa.