ORDER

Ms. Rajita Sareen, Presiding Member

                 Rajiv Vohra complainant has filed the present complaint against the titled opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short, the C.P.Act.) in which he has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund the price of the defected mobile phone alongwith damages suffered in his profession due to defective phone and damages of visiting the service centre time and again alongwith costs of litigation.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a practicing lawyer. On 27.6.2017, he purchased a Redmi -4 Mobile phone vide invoice no.KA-BL-R5-141777691-3634910 for Rs.6998/- from opposite party no.1 through Amazon online and its warranty was one year. After receiving the mobile phone, it was operated by him and within a few days many defects were found in the phone such like battery backup low, battery deformation, Auto Decrease Battery, Handset overheat and heating issue and camera not in proper working condition, Phone being switched off without command etc. He approached the authorized service centre i.e. opposite party no.2 and he has to visit the centre for more than 30 times for getting the defects removed. The service centre kept the phone with it for more than 90 days on different occasions and tried to solve the problem of handset and handover the set after repair but defects could not be removed. The opposite party no.2 also informed the opposite party no.1 regarding the repair work and told the set is not repairable due to manufacturing defects. Last repair was done on 15.05.2018 but inspite of the information the opposite party no.1 has done nothing for removing his grievances till today. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  He is a busy lawyer and most of his work depends on phone communication and due to defected phone much work has been suffered and he has suffered financial loss. He is entitled to refund of the price of mobile phone amounting to Rs.6998/- alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. damages for financial loss to his profession due to defected phone which is assessed to be Rs.50,000/- and for mental agony and stressed and time and energy spends in visiting the service centre is assessed of Rs.40,000/-. Hence this complaint.

3.           Notice was issued to the opposite party no.1 but it did not come to the Forum. On 27.7.2018, case called several times but none had come present on behalf of opposite party no.1. Hence, it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte. 

4.       On notice, opposite party no.2 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply taking the preliminary objections that there is no complaint of the complainant regarding the purchase of the said mobile and from where he get the said mobile and from whom and from which source he obtained the said articles and where, why he intentionally not made him party. So contents of section 12 CPA and of Contract Act are not fulfilled and also the complaint is silent about these facts. On merits, it was submitted that the opposite party no.2 has done its duty of repairing the mobile/article as per the authorities and guidelines of the Authorized Service Centre and providing their services with good intention and fulfilling all the consumer liabilities on them and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.2, because they are only the authorized service centre and done their duty with good intention and gave best solution of the problem. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5.     Alongwith the complaint, complainant had filed photocopies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4.

6.        Counsel for complainant has proved the purchase of mobile phone Redmi-4 vide invoice no.KA-BL-R5-141777691-3634910 for an amount of Rs.6998/- as Ex.C-1. The mobile was delivered to complainant at his house here at Gurdaspur as mentioned in Ex.C-1. The invoice is dated 27.6.2017. As per the version of complainant as the mobile phone started giving trouble only after some time of purchase of the mobile and the same is proved by Ex.C-2 and C-3 produced on the file. In Ex.C-2 Fault description is written as “Battery Deformation” And Inspection remarks are written as “Replace Battery” Ex.C-2 is dated 26.2.2018 Ex.C-3 dated 5.3.2018 and in this document repair method is “Replace Main Board” Ex.C-4 dated 15.5.2018 proves the problem of overheating. In this way, it is clearly proved that the mobile in dispute was having manufacturing defects and a number of times the complainant had to approach the service centre regarding those defects.

7.        Now the question to be discussed is that who is to be held liable for the replacement of defective mobile. As per written version filed by opposite party no.2, he is only the authorized service centre of the company at that time and he has performed all the services properly and there is no deficiency in service on its part and it may be exempted from any liability. After going through the file minutely, we also are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency on the part of opposite party no.2. It is the opposite party no.1 i.e. the manufacturer of the mobile who is liable for supplying defective mobile and moreover opposite party no.1 has not even bothered to appear in the Forum for rebutting the allegations levelled by complainant and in this way, he is held liable for supplying the defective mobile.

8.        From above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed against opposite party no.1 manufacturer and opposite party no.1 is directed to refund the sale price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.6998/- alongwith a compensation to the tune of Rs.3,000/- and litigation Rs.2,000/-. Entire compliance be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order otherwise the full amount i.e. Rs.6,998/- + Rs.3,000/- + Rs.2,000/- = Rs.11,998/- will fetch interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of decision of the complaint till its realization.

9.        Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. The complaint could not be decided within prescribed time due to rush of work.

ANNOUNCED:                  (Shri Raj Singh)                   (Rajita Sareen)

 March 19, 2019.                   Member                         Presiding Member

 MK