Haryana

Sonipat

CC/33/2016

Hari Om S/o Dhara Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chawla Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

Hari Om

12 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

 

                  Complaint No.33 of 2016

Instituted on: 25.01.2016                                                      

Date of order:  12.04.2016

 

 

Hari Om Advocate son of late Sh. Dhara Singh, resident of village Puthi, tehsil Gohana, distt. Sonepat at present r/o Gali no.25, Gohana road, Mayur Vihar, Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.        Versus

 

1.Chawla Mobile  shop no.11, Behind Geeta Bhawan Chowk, Sonepat through its Prop.

2.Gionee Syntech Technology Pvt. Ltd. E-9, Block No.B-1, Ground Floor, Mohan Co-op. Industrial Estate, Mathura road, New Delhi-110044 through its Manager.

3.Rudra Communication, old DC road, Sonepat through its Manager.

 

                                                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by:Complainant in person.

          Respondent no.1 to 3 ex-parte.

 

Before-  Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

 

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that on 11.4.2015, he purchased one mobile phone Gionee for Rs.15000/- form respondent on.1.  But after some time, it started creating problem for the complainant i.e. there was problem of heating and speaker etc. The complainant deposited the mobile with the respondent no.3, who repaired the same with the assurance that the problem has been rectified.  But  in the month of 8/2015, there has arisen same problem of heating, lighting, display and speaker etc.  The complainant again deposited the mobile  with respondent no.3. Even after sending the mobile to the company, the problem of heating, lighting, speaker and auto switch off has not been removed.  The complainant has requested the respondent no.3 either to replace the same with new one or to refund the cost of the mobile.  But the respondent no.3 has refused to do so and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In the present case, the respondents have been proceeded against ex-parte.

3.        We have heard the ex-parte arguments  

advanced by the complainant at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

4.       In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has purchased the Gionee mobile in question from respondent no.1 worth Rs.15000/-.  As per the complainant, there was problem of heating, lighting, speaker,  auto switch off.  The said problem has not been rectified even after sending the mobile to the company.  The complainant several times handed over the mobile set to respondent no.3 for rectification of the fault, but of no use and then he requested the respondents either to replace the defective mobile set or to refund the cost of the mobile as the mobile set was having manufacturing defect.  But all the requests of the complainant have ended into smoke.

         In the present case, the respondents have been proceeded against ex-parte.

         We have perused the pleadings of the complainant very carefully & minutely and the same has gone unrebutted and unchallenged because the respondents have failed to appear before this Forum.

 

         In the present case, the complainant has purchased the mobile in question on 11.4.2015 and he has filed the present complaint before this Forum on 25.1.2016 i.e. within one year of warranty.  In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if some depreciation amount from the bill amount is deducted.  Thus, we hereby deduct Rs.2000/- from the original bill amount of Rs.15000/- and the entitlement of the complainant towards the respondents comes to Rs.13000/-.  Since the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the respondents are directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- only in total (Rs.two thousand in total) for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to provide the new mobile phone to the complainant worth Rs.15000/- (Rs.fifteen thousand). 

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands ex-parte allowed and the respondents are directed to make the compliance of this order within one month from the date of passing of this order.  It is also directed that if the mobile in question is in possession of the complainant, then he will return the same alongwith all its accessories to the respondents.

 

 

 

         Certified copy of this order be provided to the complainant free of costs and the same be also sent to the respondents for information and its strict compliance.

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)                         (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF,                        President, DCDRF

Sonepat.                              Sonepat.

 

Announced 12.04.2016