Haryana

Sonipat

299/2014

AJAY S/O ZILE SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. PRIYANKA TELESHOP,2. LAXMI TELECOM,3. KARBONN MOBILE - Opp.Party(s)

RAVINDER DHIMAN

16 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

                                Complaint No.299 of 2014

                                Instituted on:11.11.2014

                                Date of order:09.04.2015

 

Ajay son of Zile Singh resident of village Tajpur, tehsil and district Sonepat.

 

                                           ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

 

1.M/s Priyanka Teleshop (now Priya Teleshop) near Vodafone Store, Delhi road, Sonepat through its Prop.

2.M/s Luxmi Telecom, Ist Floor, PP Tower, near Subhash Chowk,Opp. Income Tax Office, Atlas road, Sonepat through its Manager-Incharge.

3.M/s Karbonn Mobile, 39/13, Office 7^th Main Hall, 2^nd Stage Appareddy Plya, Indira Nagar, Banglore-560038 through its Managing Director/Manager.

                                           ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Ravinder Dhiman Adv. for complainant.

           Respondent no.2 and 3 ex-parte on 16.01.2015.       

           Respondent no.1 ex-parte on 6.4.2015.

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        D.V.RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased one Karbonn Mobile Phone Model A-29 form respondent no.1 vide bill no.836 dated 11.6.2014 worth Rs.8500/-, but the said mobile has not worked properly even for a month.  The complainant has approached the respondent no.1 and complained about the working of the said mobile, who asked the complainant to contact respondent no.2.  The complainant, thus, contacted respondent no.2 on 24.7.2014, who checked the mobile and told that there was problem in touch penal of the said mobile and asked the complainant to leave the mobile. When the respondent no.2 was asked to return the mobile, he put off the matter 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.        Notice to the respondents no.2 and 3 were issued, but when none appeared on their behalf, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 16.1.2015.  Similarly, notice to respondent no.1 was issued through process server of this Forum and as per his report, he has refused to accept the summon and due to this, he was also proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 06.04.2015.

3.        We have heard the ex-parte arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the complainant at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        In the present case, the complainant has alleged the deficiency in services on the part of the respondents and has submitted that the mobile purchased by him from respondent no.1 and manufactured by respondent no.3 was having manufacturing defect and when it was submitted with respondent no.2 for its repair, till date, it has not been returned to the complainant by the respondent no.2 and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          Since there is nothing on the file from the side of the respondents, whereas opportunity was given to the respondents by issuing them the notice to appear before this Forum and to defend the case.  But the respondents instead of doing so, have chosen to proceed themselves ex-parte and due to this, we have no other option except to accept the pleadings of the complaint and thus, we have accepted the present complaint with the directions to the respondents to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment & under the head of litigation expenses.  The respondents are further directed to provide the complainant new mobile of the same company with one year warranty  upto the price of Rs.10500/- (Rs.8500/- as cost of the defective mobile plus Rs.2000/- as compensation).

 

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

          Certified copy of this order be provided to the complainant and be also sent to the respondent for information and its strict compliance.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member) (DV Rathi Member)     (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat         DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced:  09.04.2015