Haryana

Ambala

CC/246/2016

Vipul - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cloudtail India Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Aditya Verma

04 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 246 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution         : 14.06.2016

                                                          Date of decision   : 04.01.2017

 

          Vipul Sharma son of Sh. Basant Kumar aged about 25 years resident of H.NO. 48, Ashok Nagar, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt.   

……. Complainant.

 

 

1. Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd; Anjaneya Infrastructure project No. 38 & 39 Soukya Road, Kacherakanahalli, Hoskote Taluka, Bangalore, Rural District Bangalore-560067 Karnatka, India.
2. Motorola Mobility India Private Ltd. 415/2, Mehruali –Gurgoan Road Sector -14, Gurgoan-122001, Haryana, India.
3. M/s Pristine Enamore, shop no. 175/7, First Floor Bank Road, Ambala Cantt-133001.

 

 ….…. Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                             

 

 

Present:       Sh. Adiya Verma, counsel for the complainant.

                   Ops already exparte v.o.d. 25.07.2016

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a mobile bearing invoice number is KABLR6-144105041-7233940 dated 25.12.2015 for sum of Rs. 5,999/- from OP No. 1 which was having one year warranty. The mobile phone started giving problems like hanging, slow working battery problem, voice problem and other functional problems and same was replaced by OP No. 1 vide invoice No. KA-BLR6-144105041-7496853 on 04.01.2016. Again replaced mobile is also not functioning properly and the complainant again approached OP NO. 3 for rectification of defect of battery. Further submitted that when complainant received his mobile handset back, he observed that now the voice problem has started as the complainant was not able to listen the voice on calls as well as on speakers and the complainant got examined his handset in another service centre of OP no. 2 at Chandigarh and the complainant was very surprised to know that the OP no. 3 has placed a duplicate part in the mobile handset, when it was given for resolving the battery issue ****

touching mobile hanging, camera, phone memory automatically delete and mobile network not working properly, touching problem and mobile internet not working properly. Complainant further submitted that the mobile phone again occurred the same problems after repairing by OP no. 2. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Registered notice issued to Ops but none have turned up on their behalf and they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.10.2016.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-2 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file. The case of complainant is that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone bearing EMI NO. 860408036394579 model no. VIVO Y31L  for Rs. 9500/- from OP no. 3 vide cash memo no. 6590 dated 18.07.2016 Annexure C1 which was having one year warranty started giving problems as per job Sheet (Annexure C-2) having ‘Bad Software.  Perusal of the job sheet reveals that the mobile set occurred problems due to its bad software and the version of complainant duly supported by his affidavit reveals that the mobile in question started giving problems i.e. touching mobile hanging, camera, phone memory automatically delete and mobile network not working properly, touching problem and mobile internet not working properly within its warranty period inspite of various visits by complainant thus the OPs are negligent in rectifying the problems of mobile set. The Ops  despite registered notice not pursued the case and they were proceeded against exparte. As such, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and thus we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant.

5.                In view of above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed with costs and Ops are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To refund the cost of mobile set to the tune of Rs.5,999/- as per Annexure C-4, In case of failure to refund the money within stipurated period then the Ops are directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.

 (ii)    Also to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation.

                   Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to rec ord room.

Announced on :04.12.2016                                                   Sd/-

                                                                                           (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                     Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member