DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 127 of 18.4.2017

                                      Decided on:     23.8.2017

Ashok Lal son of Sh.Ram Lal, resident of Goel Karyana Store, Malerkotla Road, near Anaaj Mandi, Nabha, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       AK Edu.Technology Pvt. Ltd., Hhyderabad LTO, Opp. GMR Old site Office, Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Shamashbad, Hyerabad=500409.

2.       AK Edu. Technology Pvt. Ltd. , J-8-1457, Opposite New Amritsar GT Road, Amritsar (Pb.)

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                    

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.M.L.Sharma,advocate,counsel for complainant.

                                       Opposite parties ex-parte.                                  

 ORDER

                                        SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER

                               Sh.Ashok Lal,complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-

1. To replace the mobile set with new one ( in running condition) or to refund the price of the same i.e. Rs.3300/- ;
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment ;
3. To pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses and
4. To grant any other relief,which this Forum may deem fit.

2.       In brief, the case of the complainant is that after watching an advertisement on Big Magic Channel, he booked a 7sc Star Datawind Mobile (UBISLTE 3G7x) tablet vide order No.CCS5TUK-1 from the OPs .The OPs made the delivery of the mobile phone bearing IMEI No.911543653656279 , serial No.P314170353469272 at his premises on 27.3.2017 against the payment of Rs.3300/- as per invoice No.AKE COMT0311174461 dated 11.3.2017. On receiving the mobile phone, the complainant tried to start the same but  the mobile phone could not start even after charging the same. He made complaints to the OPs through e-mails dated 25.3.2017 and 26.3.2017 but to no effect. He also made so many calls to the OPs on their phone No.01836668500 & 18004190783 but of no use. Lastly a call was made on their phone No.01833021330 which was attended to and he was advised to approach Mr.Raj Kumar at company’s service centre at Prime Info Com, Main Gate Govt. College, Malerkotla ,District Sangrur. Accordingly, the complainant visited the service centre on 3.4.2017. The officials of the service centre told him that there were major defects in mobile phone and it would be returned after two months. They flatly refused to give any receipt for keeping the mobile phone with the service centre and also to change the mobile phone in question. The act and conduct of the OPs amounted to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.

3.       On being put to notice the OPs failed to appear despite service and were accordingly proceeded against exparte.

4.       On being called to do so, the ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 & C2 and closed the evidence.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld.counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.

6.       Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone through on-line service on 27.3.2017 for an amount of Rs.3300/-. After receiving the mobile phone the complainant tried to start the mobile phone but it did not start.Even after charging it again, the mobile phone did not start. The complainant made a telephonic call on phone No.01833021330 and the person who attended the call told the complainant to approach the service centre of the company at Malerkotla,District Sangrur. The complainant has submitted that he got the mobile phone deposited with the service centre of the company at Malerkotla.Though the complainant has submitted that he got the mobile phone submitted with the service centre and the service centre did not issue any receipt for the same but the complainant has not impleaded the service centre as OP which was very necessary for the fair and just adjudication of the case. Ex.C2 are the e-mails sent by the complainant but these mails neither show as to whom they were sent to nor depict any defect in the mobile phone.In the absence of any documentary evidence on record, to show that there ever occurred any problem in the mobile phone OPs cannot be said to be deficient in service.Moreover, the service centre has not been impleaded as OP.

7.       In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the complaint of the complainant is without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:23.8.2017                

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER