Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/280/2016

Pushpesh S/o Amar Nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Imperia - Opp.Party(s)

Vijay Singh Godian

28 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR.

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 280 of 2016

                                                                        Date of institution: 11.8.2016     

                                                                        Date of decision: 28.11.2016.

 

Pushpesh son of Shri Amar Nath resident of House No.931, Sector-17 HUDA Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                     …Complainant.

                                    Versus

Imperia, Saya Network 58-C, Model Town, Near Raman’s Hotel Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor (Authorised dealer/retailer of Apple Mobile Phone).

                                                                                                                                               ...Respondents

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Shri Vijay Singh Godiyan, Advocate for complainant.

                        OP already ex parte.

 

ORDER

1.                       The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant on the advise of the OP, purchased a Apple 6S Mobile from the OP for Rs.48,000/- vide Bill No.1035 dated 28.02.2016 and at the time of purchasing the mobile in question, the OP assured the complainant that the said mobile is of international quality and if any defect will arise in the said mobile set or its accessories, then he would be bound to replace the same or to give the new one. From the first day of purchase the said mobile, the charger of the mobile set was not working properly as the said charger was not supplying charging energy to the mobile. The matter was immediately reported to the OP but all in vain. On 14.06.2016, a legal notice through his counsel was issued, but till today neither the OP changed the charger nor replied the legal notice. Lastly prayed that OP be directed to reply the charger or refund the cost of charger.

3.                    Upon notice, OP failed to appear despite service through Process Server. Hence, he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 20.09.2016.

4.                     In support of his case complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CA, photocopy of Bill of Apple I Phone 6S dated 28.02.2016 as Annexure C1, Registered Legal Notice dated 14.06.2016 as Annexure C2 and closed the evidence.

5.                    We have heard the counsel of complainant and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

6.                     The only grievance of the complainant is that charger of the mobile phone Apple 6S which was purchased from the OP on 28.02.2016 vide bill No. 1035 for the sum of Rs.48,000/-  (Annexure C-1) was not working properly since its purchase and the complainant requested so many times to the OP either to replace the charger or refund the cost of the charger but the OP did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant.

7.                     Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards copy of the Bill (Annexure C-1), copy of the legal notice dated 14.06.2016 (Annexure C-2) and argued that despite legal notice the OP has not bothered to consider the genuine request of the complainant. Hence, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

8.                     After hearing the counsel for the complainant, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP as the version of the complainant is duly supported in his unrebutted affidavit. Even the OP did not bother to contest the complaint and remained ex parte. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased the mobile set S6 of Apple Company  by spending huge amount of Rs.48,000/- and the present complaint has been filed within a short span of time i.e. within a period of 5-6 months. Hence, we have no option except to partly allow the complaint. Moreover, the aim of Consumer Protection Act is to provide better and all round Protection to the consumer and this is only law which directly pertains to market place and seeks to reproduce complaints rising from it and it also provides effective safeguard to the customer against different type of exploitation such as defective goods, un-satisfied service and unfair trade practice. Moreover, this Forum feels that these days in the fast life style of the society, mobile set has become part and partial of the life of every person and due to huge demand of it, the companies are attracting consumers by adopting the different model of advertisement but at the same time after selling the same oftenly customers as well as consumers face a lot of problem even after paying the full cost of the same. Beneficiary companies taking huge amount in shape of profit, are duly bound to provide proper services till last satisfaction of the consumer.

9.                     Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, as the pleading and contentions put-forward by the complainant remained unrebutted and OP opted to remain    ex parte hence be partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OP to replace, the charger of the mobile set S6 Apple within a period of 30 days and further also to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation as well as litigation expenses. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Parties are left to bear to their own cost. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Pronounced in open court: 28.11.2016.

                             

(S.C.SHARMA)                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

       MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

                                                                                           DCDRF Yamuna Nagar