DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.270 of 15
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 21.09.2015
DATE OF ORDER: -20.05.2016
Narender son of Sh. Yudhvir Singh, resident of Ch. Dadri, Tehsil Ch. Dadri, District Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
Dada Gusai Communication, near New Bus Stand, Ch. Dadri, Tehsil Ch. Dadri, District Bhiwani, authorized dealer of Samsung Mobile.
………….. Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Complainant in person.
OP exparte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present complaint are that he had purchased a Samsung Grand-2G 7102 bearing IMEI No. 353202063566827 Sony Xperia C-4 Mobile Set Model-E5363 from OP vide bill No. 1944 for Rs. 18,400/- with one year warranty. It is alleged that his handset became defective after about 2 months from the date of purchase. It is alleged that he visited the office of customer care, they told that complainant that in the bill, date is not mentioned, so they cannot repair the mobile. It is alleged that on this, he visited to the office of OP and requested to write date on the bill but the OP firstly lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. It is alleged that he served legal notice dated 01.07.2015 but to no avail. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Ops he has to suffer harassment, humiliation and mental agony. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP and as such, he has to file the present complaint & prayed for change the defective mobile set with new one alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. Hence this complaint.
2. OP has failed to come present. Hence he was proceeded against exparte vide orders dated 26.11.2015.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure CA and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6.
4. We have heard the complainant in person and perused the record carefully.
5. Complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the mobile handset was under one year warranty. After the purchase of the mobile handset was got defective after about 2 months. He submitted that the complainant visited the customer care centre of the mobile handset company but they refused to repair the mobile handset of the complainant on the ground that no date has been mentioned on the bill No. 1944 issued by the OP for the sale of the mobile handset in question. The OP refused to mention the date on the bill so the complainant could not get repaired his mobile handset.
6. Admittedly, no date has been mentioned on the bill of the mobile handset in question by the OP. The date of the bill is must for calculating the period of one year of warranty. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and OP is directed to repair or get repaired the mobile handset of the complainant, by replacing the defective parts, if any, free of cost. The OP is also directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- on account of compensation to the complainant. This order be complied with by the OP within 30 days from the date of passing of this order and the complainant is directed to visit the OP within a week from the date of order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 20.05.2016. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi)
Member.
