Haryana

Sonipat

CC/61/2015

Ram Narain S/o Ranbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Abhinav Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Dahiya

01 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

Complaint No.61 of 2015                              Instituted on:03.03.2015

                                Date of order:10.12.2015

 

Ram Narain son of Ranbir Singh, resident of Dahiya Colony, Sonepat.       

                                                …Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

1.Abhinav Telecom, Opp. Union Bank of India, Rohtak road, Sonepat through its Prop.

2.Intext Service Centre, Luxmi Telecom, Sonepat shop no.107, 1^st Floor, PP Tower, near Subhash Chowk, opp. Income Tex Office, Sonepat through its Manager.

3.Intex Technologies (India) Ltd., Defendant-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi-110020 through its Manager.

 

                                                …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH-PRESIDENT.

PRABHA DEVI-MEMBER.

D.V. RATHI-MEMBER.

 

Argued by: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, Adv. for complainant.

Respondents ex-parte on 26.11.2015.

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased dual sim mobile handset make Intex 15 HD vide bill no.2742 dated 10.5.2014 for Rs.10,000/- from respondent no.1.  Just after only six months of its purchase, the said mobile started  creating problems as touch keypad of the said set were not working properly.  The complainant approached the respondents no.1 and 2 on 12.11.2014 and the respondent no.2 kept the mobile set for removal of the defects.  But till date, the respondent no.2 has not returned the said handset of the complainant after its repair 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.       In the present case, upto 6.11.2015, the respondent no.1 in person and Shri Puneet has appeared on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3. On 6.11.2015 the case was adjourned to 26.11.2015 for filing reply.  But on 26.11.2015, none appeared on behalf of the respondent no.1, 2 and 3, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 26.11.2015.

3.       We have heard the ex-parte arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the complainant and has also gone through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully.

4.        Ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has purchased dual sim mobile handset make Intex 15 HD vide bill no.2742 dated 10.5.2014 for Rs.10,000/- from respondent no.1.  Just after only six months of its purchase, the said mobile started  creating problems as touch keypad of the said set were not working properly.  The complainant approached the respondents no.1 and 2 on 12.11.2014 and the respondent no.2 kept the mobile set for removal of the defects.  But till date, the respondent no.2 has not returned the said handset of the complainant after its repair and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

         In the present case, opportunity was given to the respondents to defend their case by filing reply, affidavit and documents in support of their case. But this opportunity has not been availed by the respondents as the respondents have chosen to proceed themselves ex-parte.  In the absence of the respondents, we have no hesitation in allowing the present case since there is nothing on record from the side of the respondents to rebut the pleadings of the complainant. Accordingly, the present complaint is allowed ex-parte with the directions to the respondents to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.1000/-(Rs.one thousand) for deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses and further to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new mobile upto the price of Rs.11,000/- (i.e. Rs.10,000/- as cost of the defective mobile and Rs.1000/- as compensation for harassment etc.).

         The complainant in para no.4 has alleged that till date respondent no.2 has not returned the hand set to the complainant after its repair.  However, it is directed to the complainant that if during the pendency of the present complaint he has received the mobile set from the respondents, in that event, the complainant shall return the said mobile set alongwith its all accessories to the respondents.  It is made clear that in case the mobile set is still lying with the respondents, in that event, the respondents shall claim only the accessories except the mobile in question.

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

        Certified copy of this order be provided to the complainant free of costs and 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 10.12.2015