BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.313/16.
Date of instt.: 14.10.2016.
Date of Decision: 17.02.2017.
Suresh Kumar son of Sh. Chattar Singh, r/o Village Teontha, Tehsil Pundri, Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant. Versus
- Rohit Telecom, near Miglani Medical Hall, Karnal Road, Teontha, Tehsil Pundri, Distt. Kaithal through its proprietor.
- Sony Mobile Communication India Pvt. Ltd., A-31, IInd floor, Mohan Co-operative Industrial State Mathura Road, New Delhi.
..………OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Krishan Lal, Advocate for complainant.
OPs already exparte.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a mobile set marka Sony, Model-M4, bearing IMEI No.35386307-169618-5 for sum of Rs.19,000/- from Op No.1 vide bill No.897 dt. 03.11.2015. It is alleged that the said mobile set became defective with the problem of hanging and camera not working and he deposited the said mobile set with the service-care centre of Ops on 17.02.2016 but they did not repair the said mobile set completely. It is further alleged that the complainant again deposited the said mobile set with the service-care centre of Ops on 22.08.2016 but they did not redress the grievances of complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service and adopting unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, initially the Ops appeared through counsel but ld. Counsel for the Ops, who was appearing on behalf of Ops made statement on 31.01.2017 that he has no instructions to appear on behalf of Ops, so, the Ops were proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 31.01.2017.
3. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and document Ex.C1 and closed evidence on 13.02.2017.
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 on 03.11.2015 became defective within the warranty period with the problem of hanging and camera not working. He further argued that the complainant deposited the above-said mobile set with the service-care centre of Ops on 17.02.2016 and 22.08.2016 but the Ops did not redress the grievances of complainant.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, we found that the mobile set in question was purchased by the complainant on 03.11.2015 and the same became defective within the warranty period, as is clear from the job-sheets dt. 17.02.2016 and 22.08.2016 attached with the complaint by the complainant on the file, though the same are not exhibited. In the job-sheet dt. 17.02.2016, in the column of customer complaint, the defects have been mentioned as “Hanging, FRONT CAMERA ISSUE” and similarly in the job-sheet dt. 22.08.2016, the defects have been shown as “Restarting, FRONT CAMERA NOT WORK, RESTARTING ISSUE HANGING DATA LOST”. Besides these job-sheets, the complainant has supported his versions by affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and original bill, dt. 03.11.2015, Ex.C1. The complainant has filed the present complaint on 14.10.2016 in this forum i.e. within the warranty period. Whereas, on the other hand, the Ops did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte. 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 No.897 dt. 03.11.2015. 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.19,000/- as the cost of mobile to the complainant. The Ops are also burdened with costs of Rs.1100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges 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.17.02.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
