Haryana

Kurukshetra

21/2017

Naresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dashmesh Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

Animesh Bhardwaj

01 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no.21/17.

Date of instt. 25.1.17. 

                                              Date of Decision: 1.2.18.

 

Naresh Kumar son of Sohan Lal, resident of Mohalla Rodan, VPO Fatehpur, Tehsil Pundri, District Kurukshetra.

                                        ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. Dasmesh Mobile Communication, Navdeep Market, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, through its Proprietor.
2. Karbonn Klinic, Shop No.14, 1^st Floor, Vidhata Complex, Opposite New Bus Stand, Kurukshetra, through its Proprietor.
3. Jaina Marketing & Associates, D-170, Okhla Industries Area, Phase-1, New Delhi, through its proprietor/authorized person. 

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

 

Before               Sh. G.C. Garg, President.    

Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Member                                          Smt. Viraj Pahil, Member

       

Present:         Sh. Animesh Bhardwaj, Adv. for complainant.

 Op No.1 ex parte.

 Sh. Mohit Tayal, Adv. for OPs No.2&3.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Naresh Kumar against Dasmesh Mobile Communication and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint thaton 29.7.2015 complainant purchased a mobile Karbonn bearing IMEI No.911448000022847 and 911448000022854 for a sum of Rs.6200/- from Op No.1, manufactured by Op No.3 vide bill No.1509 dated 29.7.2015. The above said hand set became defective after some days and in the month of October, 2015 the complainant contacted Op No.2 with the request to remove the defect and OP No.2 told that defect will be removed within 20 days. The OP No.2 lingered on the matter for many time and on 18^th January, Op No.2 returned the hand set without removing the defect. The complainant requested the Ops many a time to remove the defect but they did not pay any heed. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to replace the hand set with new one or to refund the cost of the hand set, to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.

3.             OP No.1 has failed to come present and as such, he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 2.3.2017.    

4.            OPs No.2 & 3 appeared and contested the complaint by way of filing written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts as such, he is not entitled for any relief; the true facts are that the complainant visited the Office of OP No.2 and the problem was rectif8ied as per voice of the customer free of costs and the answering Ops provides their best service when the complainant visited the service center of the company.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objections were reiterated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.  

5.            The complainant has tendered in to evidence his own affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, photo stat copy of cash memo as Ex.C1, photo stat copy of job sheet as Ex.C2, photo stat copy of legal notice as Ex.C3, postal receipts as Ex.C4 and C5, acknowledgments as Ex.C6 and thereafter closed the evidence. On the other hand, the Ops did not lead any evidence.

6.             We have heard learned counsel parties and have gone through the record carefully.

7.            From the cash memo, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 29.7.2015 for the sale consideration of Rs.6200/-. From the perusal of Job Sheet Ex.C2 it is clear that the unit became defective on 18.1.2016 i.e. within the warranty/guarantee period. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced from Op No.3, who is manufacture of the unit in question.

8.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OP No.3 to replace the hand set of the complainant with new one of the same model.  The complainant is directed deposit the old hand set along with bill and accessories with the service center of the company. The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.3.  File be consigned to record after due compliance.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties.  

Announced:

Dated :1.2.2018                          (G.C.Garg)

                                                  President,

                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                       Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra.

 

 

       

(Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta)   (Viraj Pahil)

  Member                           Member