Haryana

Ambala

CC/415/2017

Rakesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dashing Mobile World - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

17 Apr 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.          : 415 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution          : 23.11.2017

                                                          Date of decision     : 17.04.2018

 

 

Rakesh Kumar son of Lt. Sh. Jagdish Chander, R/o # 36, DW, Colony Jalbera Road, Ambala City (Haryana)

……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.       Dashing Mobile World, Near Jagadhri Gate, Behind Indian Bank, Ambala City (Haryana) through its Proprietor.

2.       HTC India Pvt Ltd (Dopod), G-4, BPTP Park Centre, Sector-30, Near  NH-8, Gurugaon- 122001, Haryana India

 

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender  Kumar, Member.               

                   Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

 

 

Present:       Sh. Arjun Vohra, counsel for the complainant.

                   OP Nos. 1  & 2 proceeded ex parte v.o.d. 11.01.2018.

 

 

ORDER:

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant has purchased a mobile mark HTC-DESIRE-828-3-32GB-GRAY amounting Rs. 16,000/- from OP No.1 vide invoice no.6251, dated 16.02.2017. There the complainant started using  the same but after some days of purchase of  the said  mobile, the mobile developed the defects of charging and stopped charge as well as there was hearing problem and the mobile used to get heated when it is put for charging. On the request of the complainant, the OP No.1 got repaired the mobile twice from the OP No.2 i.e. on dated 22.07.2017 & 23.09.2017 respectively but the defect continued. Thereafter, the complainant again approached the Ops and requested the Ops either to replace the set with new one or to return the costs of the same amounting to Rs. 16000/- alongwith interest as the mobile is well within guarantee period but firstly the Ops have put off the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly the Ops have totally refused to replace the system or to pay the cost of the same. A legal notice served to the Ops through registered A.D. on 26.10.2017. The complainant suffered mental and financial harassment at the instance of the Ops and further Ops are deficient and negligent in rendering service to the complainant and are also guilty of unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Registered notices issued to Op Nos.1 & 2 but none have turned up on their behalf and they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.01.2018.  

3.               To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A with documents as annexure C-1 to C-5 and close his evidence. Ops  were proceeded ex parte v.o.d. 13.02.2018.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file. It is proved on the file that the complainant has purchased a mobile from OP NO.1 vide invoice no.6251 dated 16.02.2017 as Annexure C-1. The complainant has alleged that after day of the purchase of the mobile in question developed the defects of charging and stopped charge as well as hearing problem and the mobile used to get heated when it is put for charging. It is proved on the file that the complainant has got repaired the mobile twice on 22.07.2017 as well as 23.09.2017 as per Annexure C-2 & Annexure C-3 from OP No.2. The complainant alleged that inspite of repaired mobile in question defect remained continue. In this regard, the complainant has also served the notice to the Ops vide Annexure C-4 on dated 26.10.2017 and the complainant has placed on record original postal receipt as Annexure C-5. In view of the above documents, it is very well established that the phone was not in working condition. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a benevolent social legislation as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in their judgements from time to time and is aimed at providing for better protection of the interests of the consumers as defined in the preamble to the Act. The Ops have not rectified the problem in mobile in question inspite sending notices. In the present case, the Ops despite registered notices not pursued the case and they were proceeded against ex-parte. 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 deserved to be accepted and same is hereby allowed with cost which is assessed Rs.3000/- and Ops No.1 & 2 are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

1. To replace the Mobile set in question with a new one of the same model. If the same model is not available then to refund the cost of mobile set to the tune of Rs.16,000/- as per Annexure C-1 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization subject to returning the mobile in question to the Ops.
2. Also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- on account of cost of proceedings as assessed above.

 

Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on : 17.04.2018

                    

 

 (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)       (ANAMIKA  GUPTA)          (D.N. ARORA)

Member                          Member                                 President