Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/23/2016

Gopal Krishan Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Garg Traders - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Sunil kumar

23 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                                       Consumer Complaint No.23 of 2016

                                                            Date of institution:  23.02.2016      

                                                                        Date of decision  :            23.05.2016

Gopal Krishan Garg, aged about 39 years, son of Sh. Sham Lal Garg, resident of Quilla Road, Amloh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, practicing as an Advocate at Civil Courts Complex, Amloh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

 

1.     Garg Traders, Main Bazar, Amloh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib through its Proprietor.

2. Intex Technologies Private Limited, D-18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110020 through its authorized person.

  …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                       Smt. Veena Chahal, Member                                                   Sh. Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

Present :        Sh. Sunil Kumar Garg, Adv. Cl. for the complainant.                                  Opposite parties Exparte.

 

ORDER

By Amar Bhushan Aggarwal, Member

                      Complainant, Gopal Krishan Garg, aged about 39 years, son of Sh. Sham Lal Garg, resident of Quilla Road, Amloh, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                    The complainant Purchased an Intex Aqua Speed HD mobile hand set bearing IMEI No.911441350267906 for Rs.7800/- from OP No.1 vide bill/invoice No.884 dated 18.06.2015. The mobile hand set in question is in guarantee period of one year and it was assured by the OP No.1 that in case of any defect in the mobile hand set, the same shall be removed or the mobile hand set shall be replaced with new one.  Since the date of its purchase, the complainant is not in a position to use the same effectively, as the said mobile hand set used to hang on almost every call, either incoming call or outgoing call. The complainant immediately visited OP No.1 and disclosed the aforesaid facts to it.  OP No.1 assured the complainant that it will get the said mobile hand set replaced very soon as the same is in guarantee period.  Thereafter, the complainant visited the shop of OP No.1 on various occasions for repair or replacement of the mobile hand set but it refused to replace the same with a new one and alleged that the said fault might have occurred due to fault on the part of complainant himself.  There is gross negligence, deficiency in service, carelessness and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.57,800/-( i.e. Rs.50,000/- + Rs.7800/-) to the complainant on account of mental tension, pain, agony, undue and unnecessary harassment, being suffered by the complainant.

3.                   Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs but they choose not to appear to contest this complaint. Hence they were proceeded against exparte.

4.                   In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, true copy of bill dated 18.06.2015 as   Ex. C-2 and closed the evidence.

5.                   The Ld. counsel for complainant submitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile set for Rs.7,800/-, vide bill No. 884 dated 18.06.2015 Ex. C-2, from OP No.1, who is retailer of OP No.2 i.e. Intex Technologies Pvt.Ltd. New Delhi. The Ld. counsel for the complainant pleaded that the complainant visited OP No.1 time and again for rectification of the defects in the mobile hand set but he failed to repair/rectify the problem in the said mobile set despite it being in the warranty period. The OPs have also deliberately refused to replace the mobile set or refund the amount. The OPs have thus committed deficiency in service and caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant, despite knowing the facts that the mobile hand set was found to be defective.

6.                   OPs were given due notice and summons were duly served as per tracking reports of Postal Department. They did not appear at any stage during the pendency of the complaint. Their non-appearance is nothing but an admission from their own side.

7.                   After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the complainant and the oral argument, we find that there is force in the submissions of the ld. counsel for the complainant. The OPs have time and again failed to repair/rectify the problem in the said mobile set despite it being in the warranty period.

8.                   In view of our above discussions we accept the present complaint and find that the OPs have committed deficiency in service by not repairing or replacing the said mobile set. Hence, we direct the OPs to properly repair/rectify the Mobile Set within a period of 15 days and if the problem persists again, then replace the same with a new one of the same value or refund the amount of Rs.7,800/- within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. Complainant is also held entitled to the damages suffered by him on account of harassment and mental tension. The damages are assessed at Rs. 2000/- for mental agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs.1500/-. The damages and the costs may be paid within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. If the orders are not complied within the stipulated period, it will carry 9% interest on the above said awarded amount till its realization.

9.                   The arguments on the complaint were heard on 16.05.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated:-23.05.2016

(A.P.S.Rajput)             

   President

 

(Veena Chahal)            

   Member

 

      (A.B.Aggarwal)              

        Member