BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.108/16.
Date of instt.: 28.04.2016.
Date of Decision: 10.01.2017.
Tirath Pal @ Tritapal s/o Sh. Phool Singh, r/o Model Town, Dhand Road, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd., Vatika Business Park, Ist Floor, Badshahpur Road, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurgaon, Haryana
- City Heart Mobile Shop through its partner/prop. # Shop No.G-24, Lala Lajpat Rai Shopping Complex, Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Lovneet Bindlish, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Balbir Dhiman, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.
Op No.2 exparte.
ORDER
(HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a mobile set of Lenovo Company A6000 for a sum of Rs.7500/- vide invoice No.804 dt. 13.07.2015. It is alleged that the said mobile set developed some incurable and inherent defects in the month of August, 2015 and even camera, bluetooth and charger was not working in proper manner and the said mobile set was also hanging problem. It is further alleged that the complainant requested the Ops several times to repair or replace the said defective mobile set but the Ops did not do so. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.2 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 10.06.2016. Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, it is stated that there is no record or invoice found of the purchase of said mobile set. The complainant is not a consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant never approached the authorized service centre and without approaching the authorized service-centre for service, the complainant has approached this Forum within one year from the date of purchase to make undue advantage of money. The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and Mark-C1 and closed evidence on 20.09.2016. On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 and closed evidence on 04.11.2016.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant on 13.07.2015 became defective in the month of August, 2015 with the problems of camera, bluetooth and charger was not working in proper manner and the said mobile set was also hanging problem. He further argued that the complainant requested the Ops several times to repair or replace the said defective mobile set but the Ops did not redress the grievances of complainant. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 controverted all the allegations contained in the complaint. He argued that the complainant never approached the authorized service centre and without approaching the authorized service-centre for service, the complainant has approached this Forum to make undue advantage of money.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, we found that the mobile set in question was purchased by the complainant from Op No.2 on 13.07.2015 and the same became defective within warranty period. The complainant approached the Ops regarding repair of the said mobile set, but the Ops did not redress the grievances of complainant. The complainant has filed the present complaint on 28.04.2016 i.e. within the warranty period. The complainant has supported his versions by affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and Mark-C1. The documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 are the reports issued by Nagpal Mobile Service & Care Centre, near Committee Chowk, Kaithal whereby he has reported that the mobile in question is having manufacturing defect and is having incurable defects and mobile is dead. Whereas, on the other hand, the Op No.1 alleges that the complainant never approached the service-centre. The Op No.1 appeared in this Forum on 10.06.2016 i.e. within the warranty period of the mobile set in question but Op No.1 did not make any request at that time for checking or repair the mobile set in question. The Op No.2 was proceeded against exparte. So, the evidence of complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against Op No.2. Hence, the act of Ops by not repairing or replacing the mobile set with new one amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant vide invoice No.804 dt. 13.07.2015. However, it is made clear that if the said mobile as purchased by the complainant, is not available with the Ops, then the Ops shall refund Rs.7500/- as the cost of mobile set to the complainant. The Ops are also burdened with costs of Rs.1100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges etc. to the complainant. Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.10.01.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
