Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Sh.Rakeshwar Nath Sharma has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13  of the Consumer Protection Act, on the allegations that he purchased Mobile Set made Microsoft Lumia-540 having IMEI No. 358608068655628 for a sum of Rs.9150/- on 7.11.2015 vide invoice No. 36588 from Opposite Party No.1. The complainant has also paid Rs.800/- for the insurance of the Mobile Set in dispute in addition to the price of Mobile Set in dispute of Rs.9150/-. The complainant is running the business of photography and has very busy schedule in his business and the complainant has to remain in touch with his customers through mobile phone also and the complainant purchased the Mobile Set for his personal and daily use. In the month of August, 2016, the Mobile Set in dispute started creating problems in its functioning and get auto restart during the calls and even when the complainant was not using the Mobile Set in dispute as such, on 12.8.2016 the complainant visited the office of Opposite Party No.1 for the repair of the Mobile Set in dispute. Opposite Party No.1- service  centre kept the mobile phone of the complainant with them for its repair and assured the complainant that  Mobile Set in dispute will be repaired and be given back within 10-15 days and in this regard, Opposite Party No.1 also prepared the job sheet No.1631 dated 12.8.2016. Thereafter, the complainant made so many visits to the Opposite Parties regarding the status of Mobile Set in dispute, but to no affect. Finally on 1.11.2016, the complainant made a visit to the office of Opposite Party No.1 and requested to return the Mobile Set in dispute as it has already taken huge time i.e. about three months for repair, but the Opposite Party No.1 starting making lame excuses and demanding more time for the repair of the same, but the Opposite Parties  did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Parties  may be directed to refund the amount of Mobile Set in dispute i.e. Rs.9150/- and Rs.800/- which the complainant has paid with Opposite Party No.1 for insurance.

b)      Opposite Parties  may also be directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for mental sufferings, harassment and humiliation suffered by the complainant.

c)       Opposite Parties  may also be directed to pay Rs.25000/- as litigation expenses.    

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of both the parties despite due service, hence Opposite Parties  ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order of this Forum.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered  his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of invoice Ex.C2, copy of job sheet Ex.C3, copy of legal notice Ex.C4, postal receipts of Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 and closed the exparte evidence.

4.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

5.       From the perusal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant purchased Mobile Set made Microsoft Lumia-540 having IMEI No. 358608068655628 for a sum of Rs.9150/- on 7.11.2015 vide invoice No. 36588 from Opposite Party No.1, copy of bill accounts for Ex.C2. The complainant has also paid Rs.800/- for the insurance of the Mobile Set in dispute in addition to the price of Mobile Set in dispute of Rs.9150/-, but however, the complainant has failed to prove on record, that he ever paid Rs.800/- to the Opposite Parties  on account of insurance of the Mobile Set in dispute. The complainant is running the business of photography and has very busy schedule in his business and the complainant has to remain in touch with his customers through mobile phone also and the complainant purchased the Mobile Set for his personal and daily use. In the month of August, 2016, the Mobile Set in dispute started creating problems in its functioning and get auto restart during the calls and even when the complainant was not using the Mobile Set in dispute as such, on 12.8.2016 the complainant visited the office of Opposite Party No.1 for the repair of the Mobile Set in dispute. Opposite Party No.1- service  centre kept the mobile phone of the complainant with them for its repair and assured the complainant that  Mobile Set in dispute will be repaired and be given back within 10-15 days and in this regard, Opposite Party No.1 also prepared the job sheet No.1631 dated 12.8.2016, copy of job sheet accounts for Ex.C3. Thereafter, the complainant made so many visits to the Opposite Parties regarding the status of Mobile Set in dispute, but to no affect. Finally on 1.11.2016, the complainant made a visit to the office of Opposite Party No.1 and requested to return the Mobile Set in dispute as it has already taken huge time i.e. about three months for repair, but the Opposite Party No.1 starting making lame excuses and demanding more time for the repair of the same, but the Opposite Parties  did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record. In this way, the Opposite Parties have impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. It also shows that Opposite Parties  have no defence to dislodge the complaint. The very fact that the Opposite Party No.1 i.e.Authorised Service Centre has lingered on the matter and to repair the Mobile Set in dispute  ever since 12.08.2016  shows that the Opposite Parties  are deficient in service.   In such a situation, it is proved that the Mobile Set in dispute is not repairable, because despite keeping the Mobile Set in dispute with them, Opposite Parties  did not do anything to get the Mobile Set in dispute repaired, so in such a situation, the  Opposite Parties  are definitely liable to refund the price of the Mobile Set in dispute.

6.       Consequently, the instant complaint succeeds  and the Opposite Parties are directed to refund the price value of Mobile Set in dispute of Rs.9150/- to the complainant  within one month from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which the Opposite Parties  shall   refund the sale price of the Mobile Set in dispute i.e. Rs.9150/-, to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of passing of the order until full and final payment. However, the demand of the complainant for refund of Rs.800/- allegedly paid by him on account of insurance charges of the Mobile Set in dispute, is declined.  The Opposite Parties  are also directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant on account of compensation for causing mental tension and harassment besides Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.  Both the Opposite Parties  are held liable jointly, severally & co-extensively to comply with the order.  The complaint stands allowed accordingly. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 08.02.2017.