Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 354.
Instituted on : 01.10.2014.
Decided on : 13.06.2016.
Parveen Kumar Jain R/o H.No.1435, W.No.5, Prem Nagar, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Balaji Communication SCF 187-188, HUDA Complex, Rohtak(through its proprietor)
- Proprietor M/s Balaji Communication SCF 187-188, HUDA Complex, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.V.P.Goyal Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that one mobile set of Samsung company Model GT-55610 was handed over to the opposite party for repair on 11.10.2012 under their work order no.969 and the complainant was told to collect the same after one week. When the complainant reached at the centre of opposite party it was told that the mobile set has not yet been repaired and enquiry can be made after one week but despite repeated visits of the complainant to the service centre/opposite party, the set was not repaired. It is averred that complainant sent a written letter to the opposite party on 18.12.2013 and a legal notice on dated 15.01.2014 but the same were not replied. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed refund the price of handset i.e. Rs.5900/- alongwith compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite parties who appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that the opposite party is only the authorized service centre of the Samsung mobile company and handset was deposited in physically damaged condition with LCD broken. It is averred that the manufacturer Samsung Mobile company has not been impleaded as party to the complaint which is necessary party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties made a statement that the opposite parties are ready to pay Rs.4500/- to the complainant subject to deposit of mobile set and accessories. However, opposite parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.05.2016 of this Forum.
5. We have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that as per job Sheet Ex.C1, the complainant had deposited his mobile set on 11.10.2013 with the opposite party/service centre and the LCD of the same was broken. Complainant also sent a letter Ex.C2 and legal notice Ex.C5 to the opposite parties but the same was not replied. However ld. counsel for the opposite parties on dated 02.09.2015 made a statement that they are ready to refund Rs.4500/- to the complainant subject to deposit of mobile set & all accessories. It is also observed that as per the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the set in question is with the opposite parties and there is no rebuttal to the same. In these circumstances, we hereby dispose of the complaint with direction to the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.4500/-(Rupees four thousand five hundred only) as admitted by the opposite parties and also to pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which the opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. The mobile in question is already with the opposite parties.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
13.06.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
