Haryana

Karnal

201/2014

Som Dutt S/o Megh Raj Jangra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bajaj Sales., 2 Bharat Electronics & Communication., 3 Micromax House - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Arya

12 Sep 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No.  201 of 2014

                                                            Date of instt :22.7.2014                                                                                                   

                                                        Date of decision: 24.03.2015

 

Som Dutt son of Megh Raj Jangra r/o House No.1682 Sham Nagar, near Sector 16, Karnal.

 

                                                               ………..Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1.Bajaj Sales(Through its authorize signatory) Shop No.18/336, Char Chaman, Karnal.

2.M/s Bharat Electronics and Communication, ShopNo.272, Char Chaman Opposite Mahabirdal Hospital, Link Road, Karnal through its Authorized Signatory.

3.Micromax House, Office No.697, Udyog Vihar Phase V, Gurgaon Haryana, New address Pasco Building, 90-B, Sector 18, Gurgaon  through its Authorized Signatory.

                                                              ……… Opposite Parties.

          

                   Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.Subhash Goyal……. President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma….Member.

                  

 

 Present        Sh.Anil Arya Advocate for the complainant.

                   Ops ex parte.

ORDER:                           

 

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the Ops on the allegations that he purchased a Micromax Mobile tablet Phone Set Model No. P-600 EMEI No. 911255750215160 for Rs.8800/- from the OP No.1 who is authorized dealer of OP No.3. The OP No.1 also gave one year warranty for the said mobile set for any type of problem and also assured to provide good services and issued the Memo No.356 dated 12.12.2013.  It has been further alleged that after 2/3  days some defect came to the knowledge of the complainant because there was audio problem and voice was also not clear and the said phone was not connected with USB. There was also hanging problem in the mobile set of the complainant. The complainant deposited the hand set with the OP No.2 who issued the job sheet dated 28.1.2014 after fifteen days. Thereafter  the complainant visited the OP No.2 on 18.5.2014 and then on 19.5.2014 and then on 27.5.2014 but the OP No.2 demanded the old job sheet and intended to give an old tablet which was not accepted by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant went to the OP no.2 and requested to give  the new hand set or the price thereof but in vain which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint and has prayed that the Ops be directed to return the price of the hand set of the complainant alongwith interest and compensation for the harassment caused to him.  The complainant has also tendered his affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint alongwith copy of the bill.

 

2.       On notice the Ops appeared but later on the Ops failed to appear and contest the case and as such the Ops were  against exparte vide order dated 22.1.2.2014.

 

3.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

4.                 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on  the file and hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant, it emerges that the complainant purchased one Micromax Mobile Phone Set Model No. P-600, IMEI No.911255750215160 for Rs.8800/- from OP No.1 vide bill Ex.C1. It has also come in evidence that after purchase of the mobile set problem came   out and the complainant deposited the hand set with the OP no.2 being an authorized service centre vide job sheet Ex.C2 and Ex.C3. It has also come in evidence that neither the mobile was repaired by the Ops nor it was returned to the complainant. It has also come in evidence that the complainant served  the Ops with legal notice vide Ex.C7 and the postal receipts Ex.C4 to Ex.C6.

 

5.                The entire evidence of the complainant goes unrebutted as the Ops have not come forward to contest the case. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary it has to be held that there was deficiency in services on the part of the  Ops and therefore, we direct the Ops to  give a new mobile set of the same model to the complainant  and if the same model is not available, then to refund the  amount/value of the said mobile set to the complainant. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.1100/- for the harassment caused to him and for the legal fee and litigation expenses. The Ops shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest  @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e.  22.7.2014  till it’s actual realization. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated: 24.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

Present         Sh.Anil Arya Advocate for the complainant.

                   Ops ex parte.

 

                   Arguments in part heard. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to  24.3.2015.

 

Announced
dated: 20.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

Present         Sh.Anil Arya Advocate for the complainant.

                   Ops ex parte.

 

                   Remaining arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated: 24.03.2015                                                                           

                                                              (Subhash Goyal)

                                                             President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.