Haryana

Sonipat

14/2015

SHAHZAD ALI S/O WAHID ALI - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. TARASH OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,2. MOBILITY LTD.,3. STAR ENTERPRISES - Opp.Party(s)

16 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.14 of 2015

                                Instituted on:15.01.2015

                                Date of order:10.06.2015

 

Shehzad Ali son of Wahid Ali, resident of Chhotu Ram Chowk, near Vilal Masjid Idgah Colony, Sonepat.

                                                      ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1.Tarash Overseas Pvt. Lt.d Plot no.5, Sector 27B,  behind SSR Corp. Tower, Faridabad.

2.Mobility Ltd. S Global Knowledge Parki, 19A-19B, Sector 125, Noida (UP) 201301.

3.Authorized Service Cent5re Star  Enterprises Shop no.G-2, City Plaza, Near Axix Bank, Mama Bhanja Chowk, Sonepat.

 

                                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

           Respondent no.1 ex-parte.

           Sh. Joginder Kuhar, Adv. for respondent no.2.

           Sh. Rajesh Sharma for respondent no.3.

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that on 1.1.2014, he has purchased Online mobile worth Rs.5499/- from the respondent no.1.  He used the mobile for 8 months, but after that, there has arisen problem of net work.  In this regard, the complainant has made so many complaints to the respondents, but of no use 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.        The respondents no.2 and 3 appeared. Whereas respondent no.1 was proceeded against ex-parte.

          The respondent no.2 in its written statement has submitted that all the allegations leveled by the complainant in his complaint are false and baseless. There is no validity to say that handset was having any manufacturing defect.  The replacement or refund of the cost of the handset can only be offered and served in the situation where defect in the handset cannot be resolved or rectified and handset is under the warranty. The complainant is not at all entitled for any relief and compensation since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

          Today, the respondent no.3 has also made a statement that the reply which has been filed by respondent no.2, be also read as a reply on behalf of the respondent no.3.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the complainant and respondent no.1 at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that all the allegations leveled by the complainant in his complaint are false and baseless.  There is no validity to say that handset was having any manufacturing defect.  The replacement or refund of the cost of the handset can only be offered and served in the situation where defect in the handset cannot be resolved or rectified and handset is under the warranty. The complainant is not at all entitled for any relief and compensation since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2.

 

          But the evidence led by the complainant totally speaks against the respondents and also established that the mobile set of the complainant was not repaired despite making various complaints.  In our view, the mobile set was not in its repairable condition due to its manufacturing defect and definitely, the complainant is entitled for the refund of the cost of the mobile set.  Thus, we direct the respondents to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.1500/- for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to make the payment of Rs.7000/- to the complainant (i.e. Rs.5500/- cost of the defective mobile set plus Rs.1500/- as compensation). 

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

          Certified copy of this order be provided to the ld. Counsel for the complainant and respondent no.1 and the same be also sent to the respondents no.2 and 3 for their information.

          File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

 

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

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:10.06.2015