Punjab

Sangrur

CC/354/2018

Jatin Grover - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chhabra Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Daljeet Singh Dandass

19 Dec 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                    Complaint no. 354                                                                                                  

                                                                    Instituted on:  27.08.2018                                                                                      

                                                                  Decided on:    19.12.2018

 

 

Jatin Grover son of Sh. Om Parkash resident of Noorpura Mohala Sunami Gate, Sangrur.               

                                                …. Complainant   

 

                                Versus

 

1.       Chhabra Communication, Dhuri Gate Sangrur through its Proprietor/ Partner.

 

2.       MI Service Centre, Prem Basti, Sangrur through its Manager.

 

                                          ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT  :         Shri D.S.Dandass Advocate                        

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES     :   Exparte

 

Quorum

                            

Inderjeet Kaur,   Presiding Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

ORDER: InderjeetKaur/Vinod Kumar Gulati,Members

 

1.             Jatin Grover, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased one mobile phone set of MI Company having model of Redmi Note 3 Gold from the OP no.1 vide invoice number 409 dated 3.5.2018 for Rs.10,200/- and OP had given a warranty of one year. On 13.08.2018, the said mobile had become  totally dead.  The complainant approached OP no.1 who after inspection asked the complainant to approach OP no.2. Then the complainant approached OP no.2 who told that said mobile set  could not be repaired . The OP  no.2 also told the complainant that mobile set was resold to the complainant by  OP no.1 as it has been already sold to some other person previous  to the complainant. As such the complainant asked the OP no.1 to replace the said mobile set as same was second hand.  The complainant got one document from MI company's official website about the mobile set which shows that second hand mobile set was sent by the OP no.1 to MI Company's service centre at Chandigarh on 12.03.2018 to replace/ change some parts and to make the second hand mobile set look afresh. Thereafter the complainant again approached the OP no.1 and requested to replace the mobile set due to manufacturing defect but the OP no.1 flatly refused to replace the same. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

 

1. OPs be directed to replace the MI company mobile set in question  with new one or refund Rs.10200/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from 03.05.2018 till realization,
2. OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account mental agony and harassment,
3. OPs be directed to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

 

2.                The OPs did not appear despite service  and as such they were proceeded exparte.

3.                The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have perused the entire documents placed on the file by the complainant and heard the arguments of the complainant. We find that that the complainant  purchased mobile set of MI company having model of Redmi Note 3 Gold from OP no.1 for an amount of Rs.10200/- under invoice number 409 dated 03.05.2018 and the OP no.1 had given  warranty of one year which is evident from copy of retail invoice Ex.C-1and Ex.C-4. The complainant's case is that he approached the OP no.2 who told him that said mobile set could not be repaired as the same was totally dead.  The OP no.2 also told the complainant that mobile set was resold to the complainant by OP no.1 as it has been already sold to some other person previous  to the complainant. As such the complainant asked the OP no.1 to replace the said mobile set as same was second hand. It has been further stated by the complainant that he got one document from MI company's official website about the mobile set which shows that second hand mobile set was sent by the OP no.1 to MI Company's service centre at Chandigarh on 12.03.2018 to replace/ change some parts and to make the second hand mobile set look afresh. Thereafter the complainant again approached the OP no.1 and requested to replace the mobile set due to manufacturing defect but the OP no.1 flatly refused to replace the same.  The OPs have not come forward to contest the case of the complainant rather they chosen to remain exparte. As such the evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record.

 

5.             In view of the facts stated above, we allow the complaint and direct the OP no.1 to replace the defective mobile set with a new one of same model. We further direct the OP no.1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- being compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.

 

6.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. File be consigned to records in due course.  

 

                Announced.

                                        December 19,2018

 

                              ( Vinod Kumar Gulati)             (  Inderjeet Kaur)                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Member                            Presiding Member