Haryana

Jind

154/2014

Ajay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gulati Mobile Shop - Opp.Party(s)

09 Dec 2014

ORDER

 

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.

                                           Complaint No. 154 of 2014

   Date of Institution: 19.11.2014

   Date of final order: 28.1.2015

Ajay Kumar s/o Sh. Randhir Singh r/o quarter police station sadar, Jind, Tehsil and District Jind.

                                                             ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

1. Gulati Mobile shop near Hansi road Patiala Chowk, Jind through its Proprietor.
2. Saini Mobile repair near Kundan Cinema, Jind, Tehsil and District Jind through its Proprietor.

                                                    …..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of

Before: Sh. Hari Singh Khokhar, President.

            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.

 

Present: Sh. Ajay Kumar complainant in person.

             Opposite parties already ex-parte.

 

ORDER:

 

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased a  mobile set of Karbon model No. Titanium S-1 for a sum of Rs.8500/- vide bill No.129 dated 25.9.2013 from opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 has given one year warranty. The above said mobile gave proper functioning upto 8 months only and after this the mobile did not give proper functioning. The mobile set of the complainant was defective one from the very beginning. The complainant visited the shop of opposite party No.2 many times for removing the defect of his mobile set but the opposite party No.2 did not remove the defect of the mobile set of complainant. The complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the mobile set or

                        Ajay Kumar Vs. Gulati Mobile etc.

                                        …2…

to repair the same but the opposite parties did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to replace the mobile set or to repair the same as well as to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant.

2.     Opposite party No.1 appeared and filed the reply stating therein that the complainant appeared in the shop of answering opposite party and  answering opposite party told to the complainant to reach customer care to repair the said mobile set.  Thereafter, the complainant visited the shop of opposite party No.2 for repair the defective mobile set but the opposite party No.2 did not repair the mobile set of the complainant. As per terms and conditions of company if any mobile set found defective during the warranty period, it is the responsibility of concerned customer care and not shop keeper /dealer. Thereafter the opposite party No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 13.1.2015.

3.     Notice issued to opposite party No.2 received back served but none has come present on behalf of opposite party No.2. Hence, opposite party No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 9.12.2014.

4.     In ex-parte evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of cash memo Ex. C-2 and copy of job sheet Ex. C-3 and closed the evidence.

5.     We have heard the arguments of complainant and also perused the record placed on file. The complainant had purchased a mobile set of Karbon model No. Titanium S-1 from the opposite party No.1 vide bill No.129 dated 25.9.2013 for a sum of Rs.8500/- Ex. C-2. The

 

                        Ajay Kumar Vs. Gulati Mobile etc.

                                        …3…

opposite party No.1 gave one year warranty of the above said mobile

set. After 8 months, the said mobile set did not give proper functioning. The complainant informed the opposite parties about the defect in the mobile set and also visited the shop of opposite party No.2 many times for removing the defect of his mobile set but the opposite party No.2 did not remove the defect. The complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the mobile set or to repair the same but the opposite parties did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged.

6.     The cash memo Ex. C-2 prove the purchase of mobile set by the complainant from the opposite party No.1. The complainant has fully supported his case by his own affidavit Ex. C-1 and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. The complainant produced job sheet in evidence Ex. C-3. The opposite parties did not remove the defect of mobile set. Therefore, deficiency in service is established on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to repair the mobile set to the satisfaction of the complainant. This order be complied within one month. Parties will bear their own costs.   Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced on: 28.1.2015

                                                                President,

      Member                                        District Consumer Disputes                                                                   Redressal Forum, Jind