DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

Complaint No. CC/15/124 of 11/06/2015

Decided on 17/08/2015

Davinder Singh S/o Sh. Bhupinder Singh R/o H. No.151/1 Mohalla Amargarh, Samana, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala. ….Complainant.

Versus

Dhiraj Babbar, Proprietor Ganesh Electrical, City Centre, Market Ist Floor Shop no.27, Micromax Care Patiala. Customer Care 2 Smobility In.

.….Opposite party.

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the

Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM

Sh. D. R. Arora, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

Smt. Sonia Bansal, Member

Present:

For Complainant : None

For Opposite party : Ex-parte

ORDER

SONIA BANSAL, MEMBER:

1. The complainant had given his mobile hand set make Spice Dual Sim Core android, MI 506 white colour to Ganesh electrical for repair vide invoice no. NITCDRH/DR H08/2014/2585912 in the month of February 2015. Due to some technical reason, the mobile hand set used to get hung after some minutes. The complainant approached the service centre i.e. Ganesh Electrical, City Centre, Market Ist Floor Shop no.27, Patiala to rectify the mobile hand set who gave him job no.19102080 F-20008 in the month of February 2015. When the complainant approached the OP he was told that mobile hand set was sent to the company to rectify the defect. He was given another job no. 19102080F30045, when he visited the OP in the month of March 2015.

2. It is further averred that complainant visited the service centre so many times but was unable to get proper answer and further OP told the complainant that he will get a new mobile hand set if the defect in the mobile phone is not rectified. In the month of May 2015, OP issued another job card no.19102080F 50033.

3. It is also averred that complainant had a talk with OP regarding the mobile hand set in question but OP again put off the matter by making lame excuse that it will take about seven days more but to no effect.

4. It is alleged by the complainant that all these facts show that there is clear cut deficiency of service on the part of OP. Accordingly the complainant approached this Forum u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the OP to repair the mobile hand set in question and to pay him Rs.11000/- by way of compensation on account of harassment and mental agony experienced by him.

5. On notice, OP failed to appear despite service and was thus proceeded against ex-parte.

6. In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence. The complainant failed to file written arguments. We have gone through the evidence on record.

7. Ex.C-3 is the copy of the invoice whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone on 24/8/2014 for an amount of Rs.5499/-. After few months some problem cropped up in the said mobile phone and the complainant deposited the mobile phone with the OP on 09/05/2015 vide job sheet Ex.C-2. Since May 2015, the complainant has approached OP time and again but OP kept on lingering the matter under one pretext or the other. OP has neither rectified the defect nor returned the same to the complainant. As the defect occurred during the warranty period, OP was bound to rectify the defect which it failed to do and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP.

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to the OP to rectify the defect in the mobile phone to the full satisfaction of the complainant. OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant which is inclusive of the cost of litigation. Order be complied by the OP within a period of one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Pronounced

Dated:17/08/2015.

Neelam Gupta D. R. Arora Sonia Bansal

Member President Member