Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 228
Instituted on : 13.04.2022
Decided on : 29.05.2023
Kashish age 24 years, s/o Sh. Ramesh Nagpal R/o 437/22, Shivaji colony, Rohtak.
……….………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Darshita Ashiyana Pvt. Ltd. R/o Rect/Killa nos. 38//8/2 Min, 191/22/1, 196//2/1, 37//15/1, 15/2 Adjacent to Starex School, village Binola, National highway-8, Tehsil Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Proprietor.
- ONE PLUS: SERVICE CENTER: PC08 HR Rohtak, Golden Enterprises Shop no.3-4, Aashram Bapu Complex, Chhotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak 124001 Service be effected through its Incharge.
..…….……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Smt. Jyoti Wadhwa, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties already exparte.
ORDER
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that she had purchased a new handset of One Plus Nord 2 5G(Grey Sierra) amounting to Rs.34999/- from the respondent no.1 on dated 14.02.2022 vide bill no.DEL5-1411697 with one year warranty,. Opposite party No.2 is the authorized service centre of opposite party No.1. But there were problems of “Heating issue, hanging issue, voice problem” in the alleged handset and he requested the opposite parties to replace the same . Complainant on request of opposite party No.1 went to opposite party No.2 on 26.03.2022 and handed over the defective set to the opposite party No.2 and he issued a job card. But till date the same handset is not working despite the fact that the complainant has visited more than trice to the service center since 26.03.2022. Complainant also conveyed the message through telephone/mail to the opposite party No.2 i.e. customer care and the company gave a false report that the handset has been repaired and can be collected from the Rohtak service centre (opposite party No.2) but when complainant visited the service centre, they showed ignorance about this set. Complainant visited the service centre many times but every time the service centre gave a false report that it will be repaired as soon as possible. As such, the act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the cost of mobile set Rs.34999/-alongwith interest, compensation of Rs.25000/- and Rs.11000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notice issued to opposite party no.2 received back duly served but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 and opposite party no.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.06.2022 of this Commission. Notice issued to opposite party no.1 through registered post received back with the report of refusal. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.12.2022 of this Commission..
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence on dated 17.02.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per the bill Ex.C1, complainant had purchased the mobile for Rs.34999/- on 14.02.2022 from the opposite party no.1. The grievance of the complainant is that the alleged mobile became defective within warranty period but the defects could not be removed by opposite parties despite repairs. To prove the same complainant has placed on record copy of service record Ex.C4 dated 26.03.2022, as per which there is heating issue in the alleged mobile set, which appeared just after one month of its purchase. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the defects of the alleged mobile phone could not be removed by the opposite parties despite his repeated requests. On the other hand, opposite parties did not appear before this Commission despite service and were proceeded against exparte. As such it is presumed that they have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding the alleged defects in the mobile phone in question and not resolving the same stands proved and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such opposite party No.1 is liable to refund the price of mobile phone to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no. 1 to pay the alleged amount of Rs.34999/-(Rupees thirty four thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 13.04.2022 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite party No.1 at the time of making payment by the opposite party No.1.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
29.05.2023
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
…………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member
