BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

   Complaint Case No.: 343 of 2014

  Date of Institution    : 10.12.2014

  Date of Decision  :     30.06.2015

Manish Saini son of Sh. Janak Raj Saini, resident of Shahpur, Tehsil and District Ambala.

……….Complainant

Versus

1.       Excellent Gallery, 2 D.C. Road, Ambala Cantt through its Prop./Partner.

2.       Nanak Telecom, 74-75, Gandhi Market, Ambala Cantt, HTC Care Service.

3.       MPS Telecom Pvt. Ltd. D-55, First & Second Floor Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi.

                                                                                       ……Opposite Parties.

Complaint under Section 12 of the  Consumer Protection Act. 

CORAM:    SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. ANIL SHARMA, MEMBER.

Present:        Complainant in person.

                     Op No.1 given up.

                     Ops No.2 & 3 exparte

ORDER

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that the  complainant purchased one Mobile phone HTC-616 bearing IMEI No.353835064177480 from OP No.1 vide invoice No.4044 dated 24.08.2014 for a sum of Rs.16,500/- and  at the time of purchase, OP No.1 assured that  in case of any difficulty in the mobile set within the warranty period of one year, it will be replaced with new one.  Complainant further alleged that the mobile set started giving problem of ‘automatically switched off ’, from the very beginning and thus on 07.11.2014, complainant approached OP No.2 service centre, who kept the mobile set vide job sheet no.IXC009-0001021 and asked the complainant to come after four days. On 11.11.2014, the mobile set was handed over to the complainant but the same was not functioning properly. As such, again on 24.11.2014, the complainant approached  the OP No.2, who retained the mobile set again and despite repeated visits of complainant, did not return the same  rather misbehaved with the complainant. Hence, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

2.                Notice was sent to the Ops, whereupon one Mayank Bansal appeared on behalf of Ops No. 2 & 3 by tendering authority letter but during the course of proceedings, he did not bother to appear and thus OPs No.2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.04.2015 whereas the OP No.1 was given up by the complainant vide statement of even date.   

 3.               In evidence, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents Annexures C-1 & C-2 and closed the same.

4.                We have heard the complainant and gone through the case file very carefully. The main grievance of the complainant is that the mobile set in question purchased vide Annexure C-1 started creating problems of ‘automatically switched off ’ in its early days but the said problem could not be rectified by the OP No.2-service center despite retaining the mobile set with them vide job sheet No.IXC009-0001021 dated 07.11.2014 and making visits repeatedly which is a grave deficiency in service on the part of Op’s. 

5.                After evaluating the record produced before us it, is crystal clear from document Annexure C-1 that the mobile set in question was sold by OP No.1 to the complainant on 24.08.2014.  It is also not disputed that the mobile set is having a warranty of one year from the date of its purchase and it became defective during the warranty period as revealed from document Annexure C-2 job sheet. These contentions of the complainant goes unrebutted as the Ops No.2 & 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.04.2015  and thus we have no option except to believe the same.

                   So, from the above discussed facts, we have come to the conclusion that the mobile phone was also having some inherent defect from its very beginning and the same was not rectified by the Ops despite various visits of the complainant to their service centre. Hence, it is a clear cut case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service committed by the Ops. No.2 & 3. Accordingly, the complaint is accepted and OPs No. 2 & 3 are directed jointly & severally to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of order:-

1. To return to the complainant, the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.16,500/- alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of Institution of complaint to till its realization.
2. Also to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation for harassment & litigation costs etc.

                   Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs  No.2 & 3 within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts  shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is decided in above terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced: 30.06.2015                                                          Sd/-      

                                                                                       (A.K. SARDANA)

                      PRESIDENT             

                                                                                                   Sd/-

               (ANIL SHARMA)

                                                                                            MEMBER