Haryana

Kaithal

CC/196/2023

Banta Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhajan Ram - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Surender Kumar

21 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 196 of 2023.

                                                               Date of institution:   24.08.2023.

                                                               Date of decision:      21.12.2023.

 

Banta Ram s/o Shri Satpal, aged about 29 years, r/o Urlana, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                   Versus

 

Bhajan Ram s/o Shri Budhu Ram, VPO Kharka, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, owner of Bhajan Telecom Mobile Shop.

...Opposite Party

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                  

                  

Present:       Shri Surender Kumar, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                   Opposite Party ex-parte.

                  

ORDER  - NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OP.

2.                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant had purchased a second hand mobile I-phone-6, for Rs.8500/- from OP. From the date of its purchase, the said mobile phone was not working properly having some technical defects in it, due to which, it unlocked automatically and since then, the mobile phone is still locked condition. In this regard, he approached OP, but he intentionally did not unlock the phone due to this reason, he is facing very hardship and could not use the mobile phone. He again approached the OP and demanded the paid amount, but all in vain. The above act and conduct of OP, amounts to gross deficiency in service, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OP, before this Commission.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OP failed to appear before this Commission on the date fixed i.e. 28.09.2023, despite receipt of notice of this Commission, as such, OP was proceeded, against ex-parte, on that date, by this Commission.

4.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record carefully.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased a second hand mobile I-phone-6, for Rs.8500/- from OP. He further argued that from the date of its purchase, the said mobile phone was not working properly having some technical defects in it, due to which, it unlocked automatically and since then, the mobile phone is still locked condition and in this regard, the complainant approached OP, but he intentionally did not unlock the phone due to this reason, the complainant is facing very hardship and could not use the mobile phone. He further argued that the complainant again approached the OP and demanded the paid amount, but all in vain. He urged that the above act and conduct of OP, amounts to gross deficiency in service, due to which, he suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony as well as financial loss.

7.                 As per complainant, the second hand mobile I-phone-6, purchased by him from the OP for Rs.8500/-, was not working properly, due to some technical defects in it, as it unlocked automatically and since then, the mobile phone is still locked condition. He further alleged that in this regard, he approached OP various times, but OP intentionally did not unlock the phone and due to this reason, he is facing very hardship and could not use the mobile phone from the date of its purchase. He lastly alleged that OP neither got rectified the defect of the mobile set nor refund its cost price nor returned the same to him, till today.

8.                To support his above contentions, complainant produced undertaking, made by OP Bhajan Ram, as Annexure C-2, regarding sale of mobile in question, to him. Complainant further produced photographs as Annexure C-1 regarding his visit to service centre for resolving the defect of the mobile in question. Complainant also produced Registered Legal Notice dated 29.04.2023, sent by him, to the OP to redress his grievance along with postal receipt as Annexure C-3. Contrary to it, OP failed to appear, before this Commission, to rebut the above-mentioned contentions of the complainant, despite receipt of notice, issued by this Commission, and opted to be proceeded against ex-parte. So, in this way, evidence adduced by the complainant, goes unrebutted and unchallenged, against the OP and thus, we have no option, but to accept the version of the complainant.

9.                Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that OP had sold defective mobile set to the complainant and also failed either to get rectify its defect nor returned its price and despite that, he puts the mobile set with him  till today. The above act and conduct of OP, amounts to unfair trade practice, which certainly caused unprecedented physical and mental harassment to the complainant and forced him to indulge in the present unnecessary litigations. So, in this way, the OP, not only liable to refund the cost price of the mobile in question amounting to Rs.8500/-, but also liable to pay the compensation amount along with litigation expenses, to the complainant.

10.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.8500/- along with compensation amount of Rs.3,000/-, to the complainant, within a period of 45 days, from the date of this order, failing which, the award amount shall carry the interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization.

11.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:21.12.2023.

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                       President.

 

                                                (Suman Rana).              

                                                Member.

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Lal, Stenographer.