BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                  Consumer Complaint No.426 of 2015

                                 Date of institution:          26.08.2015

                                             Date of Decision:            07.01.2016

Naveen son of Maninder Kumar, resident of House No.441, Near Govt. School, Village Kansal, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar.

                                     ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Franchise of Star CJ Network India Private Limited, Village Sampla – Jamalpur, Pataudi Road, Tehsil Pataudi, Gurgaon- Haryana – 123503. Registered Office e-7/88, Lala Lajpat Rai Colony, Arera Colony, Bhopal 462016 (M.P.) India.

2.     Shivam Communication, SCO 38, First Floor, Sector 11, Panchkula (Haryana) 134109.

                                                               ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

Present:    Complainant in person.

Opposite Parties ex-parte.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:

(a)    refund him Rs.5,699/- the price of the mobile phone.

(b)    pay him compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental harassment.

                The complainant purchased Datawind Surfer 3 GS Android Smartphone (ROI), item Code 142779 Black Colour/SK4:001 from OP No. on 08.05.2014 vide online order No.201405080742.  The delivery of the smart phone was made to the complainant at his aforesaid residential address. After 4-5 months of its purchase the smart phone started giving problems. The complainant contacted OP No.2 who kept it with on the ground that either the smart phone would be repaired by it or it will send the same to the complaint for repairs.  The phone was not repaired by OP No.2 and after three months the complainant was informed that the phone could not be repaired and they cannot do anything.  This act of the OPs as per the complainant is an act of deficiency in service. With these allegations, the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2.             As per the India Post Tracking Report, the summons sent to the OPs were delivered on 15.09.2015 and 12.09.2015 respectively. However, none appeared for them. Accordingly, both the OPs were presumed to be duly served.

3.             To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-3.

4.             We have heard the complainant and have also gone through pleadings and evidence of the complainant.

5.             The complainant has purchased the mobile handset from OP No.1 through internet vide COD delivery and retail invoice dated 08.05.2014. The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.5414.72 including VAT being the cost of mobile hand set. Since the delivery of the hand set, it was not functioning properly and the complainant has lodged a complaint with OP No.2 who is the service centre of OP No.1 vide job sheet dated 13.12.2014 Ex.C-3 wherein the fault reported was charging  and camera display, auto off and ring volume problem. The service centre could not rectify the defect even after keeping the hand set with it for three months.  On 04.02.2015 the OP No.2 returned the hand set to the complainant with the remarks ‘dead no power problem repeated case.’ The complainant has proved the purchase of mobile hand set from the OP vide Ex.C-2 and failure on the part of OP No.2 to remove the defects in the hand set reported by the complainant Ex.C-3 and C-4. Thus it is ample clear that the OPs have sold defective hand set to the complainant and have deprived him of its valuable property. The sale of defective hand set by OP No.1 and failure on the part of OP No.2 is an act of deficiency in service on their part for which the complaint deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated.

6.             The complaint is, therefore, allowed against both the OPs with the following directions:

(a)    to refund to the complainant Rs.5,699/- (Rs. Five thousand six hundred ninety nine only) with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from 08.05.2014 till actual refund.

(b)    to pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) on account of mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

                  Compliance of this order be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

January 07, 2016.     

                        (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member