BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No. : 21 of 13.05.2016
Date of decision : 10.10.2016
Hoshiar Singh Longia, aged about 30 years, son of Sh. Surjit Singh, son of Sh. Data Ram, resident of Village Gajjpur, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar.
......Complainant
Versus
1. Bhagwati Products Limited, Plot No.18, Sector 2, IIE, Pantnagar, Rudrapur, U.S. Nagar, (Uttrakhand) through its Managing Director.
2. Sardar Enterprises, # 156, Ist Floor, Main Market, Nangal Township, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar through its Proprietor
3. Saini Telecom, Nai Abadi Anandpur Sahib, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar through its Proprietor.
....Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
MRS. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER
ARGUED BY
Sh. Manjeet Singh Nagra Advocate, counsel for complainant
O.Ps. ex-parte
ORDER
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Hoshiar Singh, has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’ only) praying for the following reliefs:-
i) To replace the said mobile set with the new one or in alternative to return the amount paid by complainant for the said mobile set along with interest @ 18% P.A.
ii) To pay Rs.20,000 as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss suffered by him,
iii) To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs
iv) Any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit, may be passed.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 10.12.2015, he purchased a mobile phone make Yuphoria, Model YU5010A, Colour Black + Silver IMEI No.911476052187416, 911476053187415 for the amount of Rs.8000/- in cash from O.P. No.3, which was manufactured by O.P. No.1 and distributed by O.P. Nos. 2 & 3 vide bill No.896, dated 10.12.2015. It was covered with one year replacement warranty and is still covered under the warranty policy. After one month of its purchase, the software of the same started hanging and quick discharge of battery after every hour. He approached the O.P. No.3 and asked to him regarding said problem and he has sent the said mobile to the customer care service centre of O.P. No.1 and assured him that his mobile problem will be solved and it work properly. He also assured him that if the problem will not be solved then the O.P. No.3 would replace the same. It is further stated that the on 10.02.2016, the O.P. No.3 returned the said mobile to him after reinstalling the software, but when he used the said mobile phone, the problem of hanging of software existed and then he immediately contacted O.P. No.3 and he advised him to approach the O.P. No.2 but when he approached it then he flatly refused to do so. He has visited the office of O.P. No.2 & 3 and contacted the officials of O.P. No.1 telephonically and requested them to replace the said mobile phone or else to refund the amount paid by him for the said mobile phone with interest, but the O.Ps. put the matter off on one pretext or the other. Hence, this complaint.
3. The notice(s) of the complaint were given to O.Ps. No.1 to 3, but due to non appearance, the O.Ps. No.1 to 3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 28.6.2016 .
4. On being called upon to do so, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.C6 & photocopies of documents Ex. C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the file, carefully.
6. From the invoice dated 10.12.2015, it is evident that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question from O.P. No.3, for a sum of Rs.8000/-. The grievance of the complainant is that the said mobile got defective, after one month of its purchase and it would hang and its battery would discharge very quickly. He approached O.P. No.3 for rectification of the problem, who sent the said mobile for its repair to the service centre of O.P. No.1. On 10.02.2016, O.P. No.3 returned him the mobile set after reinstalling software. But on usage it was found that the problem of hanging still persisted. On the advise of O.P. No.3, he approached the O.P. No.2 for doing the needful, but it refused to do so. The problem in the mobile set in question in question could not be rectified even after its repair, which shows that the mobile set is suffering from manufacturing defect and needs replacement.
In the present complaint, the complainant has alleged that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question and prayer has been made either for replacement of the said mobile set with the new one or for refund of the price of the mobile set in question. But to prove this fact, no cogent evidence has been placed on record by the complainant, therefore, the prayer made either for replacement of the mobile set with the new one or to refund the price of the mobile set in question, cannot be accepted. As per the version of the complainant inspite of reinstalling software, the mobile set in question is still not working properly. It may be stated that being a seller, it is the duty of the O.P. No.3, to provide after sales services to the customers. To prove this fact that the complainant had taken his mobile set to the O.P. No.3 for its repair, has not placed on record any document. Taking this fact into consideration, we dispose of the complaint with the direction to the complainant to hand over his mobile set to the O.P. No.3 for its repair. The O.P. No.3 is also directed to give a receipt to the complainant after taking the mobile set in question in possession and send the same to the authorized service centre of O.P. No.1 i.e. manufacturer, for its repair, immediately and after its repair, hand over the same to the complainant.
7. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED (NEENA SANDHU)
Dated: 10.10.2016 PRESIDENT
(SHAVINDER KAUR)
MEMBER.
