DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 118 of 6.4.2017

                                      Decided on:           19.7.2017

Mukul Kaushik son of Sh.Ram Avtar Kaushik aged about 18 years, resident of C-3,Durga Nursery Road, Udaipur(Rajasthan) now R/o Room No.301, F.R.C.Hostel, Thapar University, Patiala-147001.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Green Mobiles, 369, 13^th Cross, 30^th Main, Banashankari 2^nd Stage, Bengaluri-560070.

2.       Mobile Tech, Ranjit Plaza Near Hotel Jeevan Plaza Bhupindra Road, Near 22 No.Phatak, Patiala-147001.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.M.L.Sharma,Advocate,counsel for the complainant.

                                      Opposite parties ex-parte.

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM  GUPTA,  MEMBER

1. The complainant made an on-line purchase of one mobile phone Model-LeEco Le Max2(Rose Gold,32GB) X000MGMGQL having IMEI No.869635022395506 through Amazone, vide invoice No.KA-BLR5-167791461-986471 , order ID No.408-9199274-421394 on 22.12.2016, for an amount of Rs.17,999/-.It is averred that from the day one of the said purchase, the said mobile phone was giving problem and the complainant approached the service centre of the company i.e. OP no.2 and deposited the mobile phone with the service centre vide service job sheet number 178433527/170 103/001 dated 3.1.2016 and OP no.2 told the complainant to collect the mobile phone after 15 days. The complainant visited OP no.2 after 15 days but OP no.2 told the complainant to come  after one week.The complainant made several visits to collect the mobile phone but the OP kept on lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. Since 3.1.2017, the mobile phone is lying with the service centre and the complainant underwent a lot of harassment and mental agony due to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act( for short the Act),1986.
2. On notice, OPs failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against exparte.
3. In support of the case of the complainant,  his counsel has tendered in evidence sworn affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C4 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant, gone through the written arguments filed by the ld.counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case,carefully.
5. Ex.C1 is the copy of invoice, whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone from Op no.1 on 22.12.2016. From the dayone of the said purchase, the mobile phone was giving problem. On 3^rd January,2017, i.e. just after 11 days of the said purchase, the complainant deposited the mobile phone with Op no.2, who told the complainant to come after 15days..Since 3.1.2017, the said mobile phone is lying with OP no.2 who kept on lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant being a student and living in a hostel underwent a lot of difficulty, harassment and mental agony without the mobile phone. Failure on the part of OP no.2 to rectify the problem in the mobile phone amounted to deficiency in service on its part. Moreover, failure on the part of OPs to contest the claim of the complainant shows the indifferent attitude of the OPs to redress the grievance of the complainant.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant against Op no.2 only and dismiss the same against OP no.1 as the role of OP no.1 is only to book the order and deliver the product. OP no.2 is directed to refund an amount of Rs.17,990/- , the same being the price of the mobile phone.OP no.2 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Order be complied by Op no.2 within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:19.7.2017       

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER