Haryana

Hisar

146/2014

Mahesh Soni s/o Poonam Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. BR Mobile Shop, 2. Shree Rade Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Goel

21 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, HISAR   

              

                                                Consumer Complaint no. : 146 of 2014                                                      Date of Institution        :              28.03.2014

                                                Date of decision   :               21.08.2015

 

Mahesh Soni aged 37 years, son of Sh. Poonam Chand, resident of House No.18, Tubewell wali Gali, Lohia Bazar, Sirsa. 

                                                                                            

                                                                                  ..Complainant.

 

                                      Versus

 

1. M/s B R Mobile shop 1, Ganesh Market, Hisar through its Proprietor/partner.
2. Shree Radhe Communication, Devi Bhawan Road, Near Ambay Hotel, Hisar through its proprietor/partner.

                                                                      ..Opposite parties.

         

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

 

Before:   SH. RAJESH JINDAL, PRESIDENT

              SMT.  RAJNI GOYAT, MEMBER.     

     MS. ANITA SHEORAN, MEMBER

 

Present:    Sh.Vikas Goyal, counsel for the complainant.

                Opposite party No.1 ex-parte vide order dated 17.6.2014. 

                 Sh. J.S.Gujjar, counsel for opposite party No.2.  

 

ORDER

                   In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that he had purchased one Handset of i-Ball Company for a sum of Rs.11000/- from opposite party No.1on 2.2.2013. It is alleged that after purchase the Hand Set became defective within warranty period and complaint was lodged with the opposite party No.2. The complainant visited the service centre i.e. opposite party No.2, several times and requested to repair the same but it flatly refused to do the needful. Hence the complainant was deprived of use of the Hand Set and suffered a loss. Now, the complainant has claimed the replacement of the Hand Set along with compensation and costs by way of filing present complaint.

2.       opposite party No.1 has failed to come present despite service. Hence, he was proceeded against ex parte by this Forum vide order dated 17.6.2014.

3.        Opposite parties No.2 has filed reply stating, inter-alia, therein that the complainant requested the answering opposite party to check the handset and to make repair in it. Opposite party No.2 told the complainant that they can only send the mobile hand set to Gurgaon office. On his request the said mobile hand set sent to Gurgaon office which was received back after about 20 days with the report some parts of the mobile hand set are missing and brunt which was out of warranty period, whereas this fact has been mentioned in the job sheet. Vide e-mail answering opposite party had left the service center of I-Ball Company on 24.6.2013.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

4.         In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C-1 Photostat copy of  bill dated  2.2.2013, Annexure C-2 Photostat copy of Job Sheet dated 14.1.2014 along with affidavit.

5.       In reply thereto, the opposite party No.2 has placed on record Annexure R-1 copy of resign letter.

6.           We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties.

7.            The counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant delivered his mobile hand set for repair to the opposite party No.2 on 14.1.2014, but the same has not been repaired and still lying with the opposite party No.2.

8.                The counsel for the opposite party No.2 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the manufacturing company of the mobile hand set has not been impleaded by the complainant. He further submitted that the opposite party No.2   has already left the service centre of the manufacturing company of the mobile hand set vide e-mail dated 24.6.2013 annexure R-1.

9.                 The mobile hand set was purchased by the complainant on 2.2.2013 vide bill annexure C-1 and just 17 days before the expiry of the warranty period, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 for the problem in his mobile hand set. The counsel for the opposite party No.2 has asserted that the mobile hand set was sent to the company at Gurgaon but the company sent back the mobile hand set as the parts of the mobile hand set were stated to be burnt and complainant intentionally is not taking back his mobile from the opposite party No.2. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the opposite party No.2 to deliver the mobile hand set in the present condition and also to pay Rs.2,500/- to the complainant as compensation. No order as to costs.  File be consigned to record room.

Announced:                  

Dt. 21.8.2015.                                               President,

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                      Redressal Forum, Hisar.

 

                                                                            

                                                                      Member/21.8.2015

 

         

                                                                      Member/21.8.2015