Haryana

Panchkula

CC/90/2015

Kiran Bala - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMBIKA ENTERPRISES. - Opp.Party(s)

Rishi Kumar

13 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	90 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	14.05.2015
Date of Decision	:	13.08.2015

                                                                                          

Kiran Bala wife of Sh. Amit Kumar, C.B.I. Court, District Courts Complex, Panchkula.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Ambika Enterprises, SCO No. 42, Sector-11, Panchkula, through its Manager.
2. M/s Lenovo Service Centre, SCO No. 66-67 (top floor), Sector 17-A, Chandigarh, through its Manager.
3. Lenovo (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ferns Icon, Level 2, Doddenkundi Village, Marathahalli Outher Ring Road, K.R. Pura Hobli, Banglore-560037 (Karnataka), through its Managing Director.

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:               Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr. Rishi Kumar, Adv., for the complainant. 

Ops already ex-parte.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The present complaint has filed by the complainant against the Ops with the averments that on 03.05.2014 (wrongly mentioned the date of purchase as 03.05.2014 whereas the date of purchase is 23.05.2014), she purchased a mobile Lenovo Model A390 for a sum of Rs. 6200/- (Annexure C-1) from the Op No.1 with a warranty of one year.  But in the first week of February, 2015, the phone started giving problem. The complainant approached the Op No. 1 about the malfunctioning of the touch system of the mobile & OP no. 1 advised the complainant to approach the OP no. 2. On 10.02.2015, complainant approached the OP no. 2 for getting the mobile repaired.  OP no. 2 kept the mobile with them and issued receipt dated 10.02.2015 (Annexure C-2) to the complainant.  OP no. 2 asked the complainant to contact them after a couple of days to get the mobile. After few days, the complainant approached the OP No.2 for taking delivery of the mobile but the Op No.2 returned the mobile without repair by saying that it is not repairable.  The complainant requested the OP no. 2 to give in writing but it refused to do so. Thereafter, the complainant requested the OP no. 1 to replace the mobile as the same had become irreparable but to no avail.  This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the Op No.1 through speed post. But none has appeared on behalf of the Op No. 1.  It is deemed to be served.  Hence, Op No. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.06.2015.
3. Notice was issued to the Op No.2 & 3 through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the Ops No. 2 & 3.  It is deemed to be served.  Hence, Ops No. 2 & 3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 24.06.2015.
4. The counsel for the complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 and C-2 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
6. It is evident from Annexure C-1 that complainant purchased a mobile Lenovo Model A390 for a sum of Rs. 6200/- from the Op No.1 with a warranty of one year but in the first week of February, 2015, the phone started giving problem. On 10.02.2015, complainant approached the OP no. 2 who kept the mobile with them and issued receipt dated 10.02.2015 (Annexure C-2) with remarks that ‘touch auto function and hanging issue’. The complainant approached the OP No.2 for taking delivery of the mobile. The Op No.2 returned the mobile without repair and stated that it is not repairable. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP no. 1 to replace the mobile but to no avail. The complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavit (Annexure C-A).
7. The Ops did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Ops shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the same is accepted as correct and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops is proved.
8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Ops are jointly and severally directed as under:-

(i)      To replace the mobile phone with new one with same model with a warranty of one year to the complainant or to refund the amount of Rs.6200/- alongwith interest @ 9% from the date of purchase till realization.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment.

(iii)    To pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation.

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

13.08.2015                    ANITA KAPOOR                            DHARAM PAL

                                       MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

         

 

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT