Consumer Complaint No: 78/2009

Date of presentation: 28.05.2009

Date of decision: 27.11.2009

Narinder Sharma S/O late Shri Lachhi Ram,

C/O S.S.Panwar, Satya Bhawan, Opposite

JBT Hostel, Kotla, Solan, Tehsil and District Solan, HP.

… Complainant

Versus

M/S Unique Communication, Anand, Complex,

The Mall Solan, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P.

Through its Manager/Proprietor.

…Opposite Party.

For the complainant: Mr. D.C. Sharma, Advocate vice

Mr.Brajesh Saklani, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party: Exparte.

O R D E R:

Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, avers that, on, 24.11.2008, he purchased a Nokia N 73 mobile hand set from the OP, for a sale consideration of Rs.12,800/-. It is averred that the aforesaid mobile hand set, started giving problem, hence, the said defect was brought to the notice of the OP, who on, 26.02.2009, agreed to get the mobile set checked and also assured that in case of any manufacturing defect, the set will be replaced with the new one. He further aver that the mobile hand set was given to the OP, for doing the needful, yet, the OP, after receipt of the hand set failed to rectify the defect and also failed to return the set, however, it is averred that the OP, is, demanding a sum of Rs.7,000/- as repair charges. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The notice of this complaint was issued to the OP, and Mrs. Anju Kohli, Advocate filed memo of appearance on behalf of the OP, on, 24.07.2009 and sought time for filing reply and Power of Attorney. However, on 18.11.2009, none appeared on behalf of the OP, hence, the OP was ordered to be proceeded against exparte.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OP, in not returning to him the mobile set, after repair, delivered by him to the OP for repair. Annexure-1, is, a copy of the bill detailing the sale of Nokia N73 mobile hand set to the complainant by the OP, or a sale consideration of Rs.12,800/-, on, 24.11.2008. Annexure-II, is, a, copy of service job sheet, dated, 26.02.2009, detailing the receipt of mobile hand set, by the OP, and return of SIM & MMC, to the complainant. The aforesaid documents, coupled with the allegations of the complainant, detailed in the complaint which is, duly sworn by an affidavit, is, demonstrative of the fact that the mobile hand set Nokia N73, which was sold to the complainant, by the OP, on, 24.11.2008, developed a defect, on, 26.02.2009, i.e. less than three months, of its purchase, hence, was handed over to the OP, for repair. The OP, failed to return the set after repair to the complainant.

6. Moreover, the allegations, as made in the complaint by the complainant, hence, have remained un-repulsed and un-benumbed, on record by non-adduction of rebuttal evidence on behalf of the OP, as such, the only inference which sprouts, from, the above, is, that the allegations as asserted in the complaint, are, true and correct. Hence, it is held, that, the product, so, purchased by the complainant, from the OP, was having some manufacturing defect, which not only amounts to deficiency in service, but, is, also, an, unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

7. Consequently, we allow this complaint and direct the OP to replace the defective mobile hand set bearing Nokia N73-1 Music Latte IMEI: 353548027693267, with a new one of the same make and model within a period of thirty days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order. Since, the defective mobile hand set, is, already lying with the OP, hence, their shall be no order to the complainant, for, return of the defective mobile hand set. The litigation cost, is, quantified at Rs.1,000/- payable by the OP, to the complainant within the aforesaid stipulated period. In the above terms, the complaint, stands disposed of.

8. The learned counsel for the complainant has undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, whereas, a certified copy of this order shall be sent to the OP through UPC, for compliance. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.