Haryana

Kurukshetra

14/2018

Sonia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bala ji Comm - Opp.Party(s)

Rakesh Arora

04 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.14 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution: 16.01.2018.

                                                     Date of decision: 04.05.2018.

Sonia Arora wife of Ajay Kumar, resident of Sector-13, Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Bala Ji Telecommunication, Gita Colony, Opposite Geeta School Mohan Nagar, Opposite Telephone Exchange Kurukshetra, Tehsil Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra.
2. Pace Tel Systems Private Limited, Ground Floor, 187/15-A, Pipli, Kurukshetra (Authorized Service Centre of Oppo Mobile Company).
3. Vatika Business Park, 2^nd Floor Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122001 Block-1, Gurgaon, Sector-49, Gurgaon (Haryana).

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Rakesh Arora, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Mohit Tayal, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

                Ops No.2 & 3 exparte.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Sonia Arora against Bala Ji Telecommunication and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a mobile set Model F15 make Oppo Company bearing IMEI No.863497036128472 from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.1,9000/- vide bill No.5752 dt. 24.01.2017.  It is alleged that from the very beginning, the said mobile set was giving problems such as sound problem (heavy sound)/touch system, charging problem and automatically switch off and many other problems.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.1 and made complaint in this regard, who after minor adjustment returned the mobile set to the complainant.  After some time, the said mobile set again became defective and the complainant approached the Op No.2 on 11.01.2018 in this regard but despite repair by Op No.2, the said mobile set was not working properly.  It is further alleged that the complainant requested the Ops several times to repair or replace the defective mobile set but the Ops did not listen the genuine request of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to refund the cost of mobile set alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.21,000/- as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared before this Forum, whereas Ops No.2 & 3 did not appear and opted to proceed exparte vide order dt. 19.02.2018.  Op No.1 contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             Ld. counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and thereafter closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.  On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Op No.1 made statement on 04.05.2018 that the reply filed by the Op No.1 may also be read as evidence on behalf of Op No.1 and closed the evidence. 

5.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             From the cash memo, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 24.01.2017 for the sale consideration of Rs.19,000/-.  The complainant has supported his versions by filing his affidavit, Ex.CW1/A, copy of cash memo, Ex.C1 and copy of job-card, Ex.C2.  In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced with the new one from the Op No.3, who is manufacturer of mobile set.

7.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OP No.3 to replace the hand set of the complainant with the new one of the same model.  The complainant is directed to deposit the old hand set alongwith bill and accessories with the service center of the company.  The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.3.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:04.05.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member