Haryana

Sonipat

CC/185/2015

SHASHWAT CAHUHAN MINOR S/O RAKESH SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. GARG ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

J.B. SHARMA

06 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

Complaint No.185 of 2015                             Instituted on:04.06.2015

                                Date of order:14.10.2015

 

Shashwat Chauhan minor son of Rakesh Singh Chauhan, r/o Sector 15, Sonepat being minor through his father and next friend and natural guardian Rakesh Singh Chauhan.

 

                                      ..Complainant.

 

                   Versus

 

1.Incharge/Prop. Of Garg Electricals, Mahatma Gandhi Chowk, Sector 14, Sonepat.

2.Branch manager/officer Incharge of Intex Company D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi-20.

3.Punit/Incharge Intext Customer Care and Service Centre, Tulip Mall, Mahatma Gandhi chowk, Sector 14, Sonepat.

                                           ..Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH-PRESIDENT.

PRABHA DEVI-MEMBER.

D.V. RATHI-MEMBER.

 

Argued by: Sh. JB Sharma, Adv. for complainant.           

Respondents ex-parte.

 

O R D E R

 

          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the respondents alleging therein that on 24.1.2014 he had purchased a new mobile make Intex Mode Y1 from respondent no.1 for Rs.4600/-. But the said mobile started problems from time to time and it finally stopped working on 23.12.2014.  The complainant approached the respondent no.3 who assured that the battery is not working.  Even the respondents failed to provide the new battery of the mobile to the complainant.   The respondents have sold the defective mobile to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        Notices were issued to the respondents through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the respondents and due to this, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 28.09.2015.

3.        We have heard the ex-parte arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the entire relevant record placed on the case file very carefully.

4.        In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has purchased the mobile worth Rs.4600/- from the respondent no.1.  From the contents of the complaint, it is gathered that it is very strange on the part of the respondents that they even failed to replace the battery of the defective mobile set of the complainant.  In the present case, opportunity was given to the respondents to come present before this Forum and to defend their case.  But this opportunity has gone waste as the respondents have failed to defend their case, meaning thereby vice-verse they have admitted the contents of the complaint and we are unable to ignore the pleadings of the complainant. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.4600/- (Rs.four thousands six hundred) to the complainant. The complainant is also directed to return the defective mobile set alongwith all its original accessories to the respondents and in case of any short accessory, the respondents will be at liberty to deduct the cost of the said short accessory from the awarded amount.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed ex-parte.

          Copy of this order be also sent to the respondents for information and its strict compliance.

              File be consigned after due compliance.

 

(Prabha Wati) (D.V.Rathi)           (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF, Member, DCDRF,          President, DCDRF

Sonepat.      Sonepat.                Sonepat.

Announced 14.10.2015