BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL
Complaint no.174/17.
Date of instt.: 03.07.2017.
Date of Decision:28.09.2017.
Sanjeev s/o Shri Ram Kala, r/o Gali No.6, Amargarh Gamri, Kaithal.
……….Complainant. Versus
- Gurlove Telecom, Shop No.9, Goal Market, Kaithal through its Proprietor.
- Reliance Retail Ltd., HR-KTHL-JC-01, 77/10 and 78/10, Karnal Road, near Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal through its Director.
- Reliance Corporate Parke, Building No.4, 5 TTC, Industrial Area, Thane Belapur Road, Ghausoli, Navi Mumbai-400701 through its Director.
..………Ops.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
All the Ops. already ex parte.
ORDER
(HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he had purchased a smartphone LS-5009 Gold Wind for Rs.6500/- vide bill/Invoice No.437 dated 04.07.2016 from Op. No.1 having two year warrantee. It is further alleged that within a short span of time, the said mobile handset started giving problem switch off. It is alleged that he approached the Op. No.2 on 06.03.2017 within the warranty period, who after due inspection, retained the same with assurance to return after removal of the defect, but Op never resolved the problem of mobile handset and said that the phone is tampered. It is further alleged that the complainant registered the complaints through phone on customer care vide complaint No.3049205 dated 07.04.2017 and No.20607662 dated 20.05.2017, but the Ops did not pay any heed. This way, Ops are deficient in service and adopting unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the Ops did not appear and were proceeded against ex parte vide order dt. 21.08.2017. The Ops have moved an application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 21.08.2017, but the said application was dismissed vide order dated 01.09.2017.
3. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 19.09.2017.
4. We have heard the ld. counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
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 from Op No.1 on 04.07.2016 became defective after sometime of its purchase with the problems of switch off. He further argued that the complainant approached Op. No.2 on 06.03.2017 within the warranty period, who never resolved the problem of mobile handset and said that the phone is tampered. It is further argued that he registered complaints via phone on customer care of the Ops two times, but they did not pay any heed.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the complainant, we found that the mobile set in question was purchased by the complainant on 04.07.2016, which became defective after sometime with the problem of “switch off”. The complainant approached the Op. No.2 on 06.03.2017 vide job-sheet No.8008328331 dated 06.03.2017 Ex.C-2, who after due inspection, returned the mobile set by mentioning in Ex.C2 that the mobile set is tampered. Thereafter, the complainant registered two complaints via phone on customer care of Ops vide complaint No.3049205 dated 07.04.2017 and No.20607662 dated 20.05.2017, but they did not pay any heed. The complainant has supported his versions by affidavit Ex.CW1/A; original bill Ex.C1 and job sheet dated 06.03.2017 Ex.C2, whereas, the Ops did not appear and opted to proceed against ex parte. So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Ops have adopted the act of unfair trade practice and are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint exparte 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 bill/Invoice No.437 dated 04.07.2016. 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.6,500/- as the cost of mobile set to the complainant. The Ops are also burdened with costs of Rs.1,100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges to the complainant. All 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.28.09.2017.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
Present : Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
All the Ops. ex parte.
Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present ex parte complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated: 28.09.2017. Member Presiding Member.
