Haryana

Ambala

CC/11/2019

Rakesh Vohra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dashing Mobile world - Opp.Party(s)

B.S. Jaspal

20 Jun 2019

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                                       Complaint case no.        :  11 of  2019

                                                                       Date of Institution         :  14.01.2019

                                                                       Date of decision            :   20.06.2019

Rakesh Vohra son of Sh. K.G.Vohra, resident of H.No. 124, Raja Park, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                                                         ……. Complainant.

1. Dashing Mobile World, Near Jagadhari Gate, Behind Indian Bank, Ambala City through its Proprietor.
2. Mohan Lall Mukand Lall and Company, 175, Bank Roiad, Anant Building, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt. through its Proprietor .
3. M/s Rising Store Mobile India Private Limited, Plot No. M2 B, Sipcat industrial Park II, Hi Tech S & Z, DTA Area, Sqiperum Budur, Taluk, Kancheepuram-602106, Tamil Nadu.       

                                                                                                                    ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Ms.  Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member.

                   Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member

Present:        Sh.B.S.Jaspal, counsel for complainant.

                   Op  No.1 exparte vide order dated 02.05.2019

                   OP No.2 and 3 exparte vide order dated 26.02.2019

ORDER:     SH. VINOD KUMAR SHARMA, MEMBER.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to the OPs;

1. To provide the new mobile phone to the complainant along with Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony. 
2. To pay Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

                   The brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a Mobile phone make Nokia 8 having IMEI No. 358553080481324 vide bill No. D-10443 on 10.03.2018 from OP. No. 1 with one year warranty. The Mobile set was defective from the very first day of its purchase.  The said mobile set was having poor microphone audio, poor sound from component and impurities on component sound.  The complainant visited the shop of OP. No. 1 & 2 and requested to remove the defects, but they prolonged the matter from one pretext or other.  On the advice of OP. No. 1, the complainant again approached the OP.No. 2 i.e. Service centre of the company on 7.12.2018 and received the handset from the complainant and prepared a job sheet No. 250433527/181122/010 showing all the defects with delivery date 12.12.2018.  The complainant received the mobile handset on 12.12.2018, but defects were not removed.  The complainant again approached the OP.No. 2, but despite several requests, he had failed to remove the defects.  Hence, the present complaint.     

2.                Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and OP No.2 and 3 were proceeded exparte vide order dated 26.02.2019. The OP No.1 also failed to file written version despite availing sufficient opportunities. The Op No.1 did not appear in person or through his counsel on 02.05.2019. Ultimately, the OP No.1 was also proceeded exarpte vide order dated 02.05.2019.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed his evidence.

4.                We have heard counsels for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The averments made in complaint regarding defective mobile phone have been corroborated with the evidence. The mobile phone is within warranty period. The complainant has also placed on  record the bill invoice (Annexure C-1), Warranty (Annexure C-2) and Job sheet (Annexure C-3) in his evidence. However, the Ops have failed to remove the defects in the mobile phone of the complainant. The Ops have not contested the complaint. In this case OPs have proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, 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. We are of the view, OPs are indulged in an illegal trade practice and also deficient in providing after sale service to the complainant.

6.                     In view of above discussion, the present complaint is deserved to be accepted and same is hereby allowed against the Ops and Ops are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To replace the faulty mobile phone with  new one of the same model if they are not in position to replace the mobile phone  then to refund the cost of mobile handset  amounting Rs.28,999/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.

(ii)     To pay compensation a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony.

(iii)    To pay Rs.3000/- as cost of litigation.

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

Announced on : 20.06.2019

 

 

 

 (Vinod Kumar Sharma)       (Ruby Sharma)                          (Neena Sandhu)

      Member                             Member                            President