BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.342/16.
Date of instt.: 11.11.2016.
Date of Decision: 17.04.2017.
Subhash Bhalla aged about 50 years son of Sh. Shiv Kumar Bhalla, r/o H.No.1361E/11, New Model Town, Ambala Road, Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant. Versus
- Dukaan Resources Pvt. Ltd. Gurgaon BD Blue Dart Express Limited Khasra No.5/16/2, 17, Village Behrampur near Subhash Chowk, Sohna Road, City Gurgaon/State Haryana Pin Code No.122018.
- Mepro Technology India Co. Pvt. Ltd., D-7, Second Floor Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate Guindy, Chennai-600032.
..………OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Rahul Gupta, Advocate for complainant.
OPs already exparte.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased one mobile handset namely Melzu M2 4G-16GB for a sum of Rs.6999/- from Op No.1 vide invoice No.S4E02C/15-16/22988 dt. 10.11.2015. It is alleged that the said mobile set was received by the complainant through online service at Kaithal and payment was also made at Kaithal. It is further alleged that the above-said mobile set became defective in the month of September, 2016 with the problems of non-reading of SIM and memory card, no touch sensibility and jack left working. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.1 regarding the defective mobile set and on the asking of Op No.1, the complainant sent the said defective mobile set to Op No.2 through courier service on 17.10.2016. It is further alleged that the Op No.2 vide g-mail letter dt. 21.10.2016, acknowledged receipt of the mobile set and illegally demanded the repair charges of Rs.5585.56 paise and returned the mobile handset without repair vide delivery challan dt. 26.10.2016. This way, the Ops are deficient in service and adopting unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the Ops did not appear and were opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 23.12.2016.
3. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed evidence on 03.02.2017.
4. We have heard the ld. counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant on 10.11.2015 through online service became defective within warranty period with the problems of non-reading of SIM and memory card, no touch sensibility and jack left working. He further argued that the complainant approached the Op No.1 regarding the defective mobile set and on the asking of Op No.1, the complainant sent the said defective mobile set to Op No.2 through courier service on 17.10.2016, Ex.C3. He further argued that the Op No.2 vide g-mail letter dt. 21.10.2016, Ex.C4 acknowledged receipt of the mobile set and illegally demanded the repair charges of Rs.5585.56 paise and returned the mobile handset without repair vide delivery challan dt. 26.10.2016, Ex.C5 to the complainant.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, we found that the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant became defective within warranty period with the problems of non-reading of SIM and memory card, no touch sensibility and jack left working. The complainant sent the same to Op No.2 on 17.10.2016 vide Ex.C3 and Op No.2 vide g-mail letter dt. 21.10.2016, Ex.C4 acknowledged its receipt and illegally demanded the repair charges of Rs.5585.56 paise. The Op No.2 returned the mobile handset without repair vide delivery challan dt. 26.10.2016, Ex.C5 to the complainant. The complainant has filed the present complaint in this forum on 19.07.2016 i.e. within the warranty period. Besides the above-said documents, the complainant has supported his versions by affidavit, Ex.CW1/A, copy of invoice dt. 10.11.2015 and copy of terms and conditions, Ex.C2. Whereas, on the other hand, the Ops did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte. So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Ops have adopted the act of unfair trade practice and are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint exparte and direct the Ops to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with the new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant vide invoice No.S4E02C/15-16/22988 dt. 10.11.2015. However, it is made clear that if the said mobile as purchased by the complainant, is not available with the Ops, then the Ops shall refund Rs.6999/- as the cost of mobile to the complainant. The Ops are also burdened with costs of Rs.1100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges to the complainant. Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.17.04.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
