Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 716.
Instituted on : 21.12.2017.
Decided on : 13.03.2019.
Krishan Kumar, age 43 year, son of Sh. Jai Bhagwan, Resident of H.No. 637, Sector-2, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Global Mobile Care # 331/6, Opp. C.R. Institute of Law, Delhi Road, Rohtak-124001 (M.I. Mobile Service Centre).
- M.I. Head Office Panalpina World Transport India Pvt. Ltd. 5th Floor, Orchid Business Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122018, Haryana.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER
Present: Sh. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a mobile phone (M.I. Company) having IMEI No. 863406035787568 from Online Shopping Tax Invoice vide order No. 516118961503575 on 18.11.2016 for Rs.8,999/-. It is alleged that from the beginning, the mobile was giving trouble and at last within six months of purchase, its voice become so low and android system was not working properly and it was impossible to hear the incoming call. That the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 customer care and the officials of opposite party No. 1 charged Rs.525/- towards the service charge on 17.10.2017. It is further alleged that after some days, the mobile phone did not work properly and the same problems started. Complainant again approached to opposite party No. 1, but all in vain. After that complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties, but they did not pay any heed. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay of Rs.8,999/- towards the cost of mobile phone alongwith interest @ 24% per annum and also to pay Rs.11,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 2 in its reply submitted that opposite party No. 2 does not deal in any mobile services or any other such services as alleged in the complaint. It is further submitted that opposite party No. 2 has already replied to their legal notice dated 15.11.2017 that they do not deal in mobile services or any other such services and deals in logistics services and there is no M.I. Head Office at the given address. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs qua the opposite party No. 2. Thereafter, on 15.02.2019 the opposite party No. 2 failed to appear before the Forum, hence, opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.02.2019 passed by this Forum.
3. Opposite party No. 1 also failed to appear before the court despite due service, hence, opposite party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 07.02.2018 passed by this Forum.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence on dated 29.11.2018.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that complainant had purchased one Redmi phone for Rs.8999/- on dated 18.11.2016 and the opposite party no.1 had charged Rs.525/- for repair of the same on dated 17.10.2017 whereas the mobile set was within warranty period. Service job sheet Ex.C3 is also place on record. The contention of complainant is that even after repair of the mobile set, the same did not work properly and the service centre refused to repair the same. On the other hand, as per reply filed by the opposite party No.2 they do not deal in mobile services or any other such services and deals in logistics services and there is no M.I. Head Office at the given address. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 did not appear despite service and opposite party no. 2 also failed to appear before this Forum after filing the reply and did not file any evidence on record to prove its contention. As such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding not repairing/replacing the defective mobile set stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and OP No.1 is liable to refund the price of mobile set in question after deduction of 30% depreciation on it as the complainant has used the mobile in question uninterruptedly for 11 months.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.1 to refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 30% depreciation i.e. to pay Rs.6299/-(Rupees six thousand two hundred ninety nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 21.12.2017 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite parties at the time of receiving of awarded amount.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
13.03.2019.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Renu Chaudhary, Member
