District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tarn Taran.
Consumer complaint No : 33 of 2015
Date of Institution : 26.05.2015
Date of Decision : 10.8.2015
Gursewak Singh son of Jaswinder Singh resident of village Khadoor Sahib, Tehsil Khadoor Sahib, District Tarn Taran, Punjab.
…Complainant
Versus
- Intex Perfect Mobile Repair Centre, Shop No. 19-20, Simran Plaza, Queens Road Amritsar, 143101, Punjab
- Soni Mobile Repair Gurdwara Mal Akhara Sahib Market Khadoor Sahib (Tarn Taran).
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 Consumer Protection Act.
For the Complainant Complainant In person
For opposite party No. 1 Exparte on 1.7.2015
For opposite party No. 2 Exparte on 1.7.2015
Quorum: Sh. JS. Khushdil, President.
Sh. R.D. Sharma, Member.
Smt.Jaswinder Kaur, Member
Order dictated by Sh. R.D. Sharma, Member
1 Gursewak Singh, complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short ‘the Act’) against Intex Perfect Mobile Repair Centre, Shop No. 19-20, Simran Plaza, Queens Road Amritsar, 143101, Punjab (herein-after referred to as ‘Opposite Party No.1’) and Soni Mobile Repair Gurdwara Mal Akhara Sahib Market Khadoor Sahib (Tarn Taran) (herein-after referred to as ‘Opposite Party No.2’).
2 The brief facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased one mobile set 9-2199-1024-0 of Mobile GSM Aqua 15 HD (Black) Duel Sim (2199-1024-0), serial No., 91376600546461 from opposite party No. 2 for Rs. 11,900/- vide Bill No. 39 dated 19.9.2014. The complainant submitted that he deposited the mobile set in question with the opposite party No. 1 on 4.4.2015 for want of repair. The complainant two times personally visited the opposite party No. 1 and contacted on phone for 10 times. But the opposite party No. 1 failed to return the mobile in question after repair on lame excuses. The complainant further submitted that he suffered hardship and paid huge money by going personally to his relative without the availability of mobile set in question. He further submitted that the opposite parties have failed to deliver the mobile set in question to the complainant after repair. As such, the opposite parties caused him financial loss, social loss, mental stress, physical wear and tear and the further submitted that there is deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complainant has prayed this Forum to consider the present complaint and opposite parties be ordered to pay compensation to make irreparable loss of the complainant.
3 Notice of this complaint was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not appear in the Forum despite the proper and valid service. Therefore, opposite parties No. 1 and 2 proceeded against exparte on 1.7.2015.
4 In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, affidavit of Jarmanjeet Singh son of Dilbag Singh Ex. C.2 alongwith documents i.e. self attested copy of Bill No. 39 dated 19.9.2014 Ex. C.3, Self attested copy of Service Request dated 4.4.2015 Ex. C.4 and closed the evidence.
5 We have heard the ld counsel for the complainant and also perused the evidence produced on record by the complainant with the assistance of complainant.
6 The complainant contended that he has purchased the mobile set in question from opposite party No. 2 vide receipt dated 19.9.32014 Ex. C.3 after payment of Rs. 11,900/-. The complainant further contended that his mobile set started giving problem and has become automatically off. The complainant further contended that he deposited the mobile set in question with the opposite party No. 1 vide service request Ex. C.4 on 4.4.2015. The complainant further contended that he requested the opposite party No. 1 many a times through telephone and by personal visits. But the opposite party No. 1 did not return the mobile set in question to the complainant after necessary repair. He further contended that the mobile set in question is in warranty period and the complainant has prayed to accept the complaint as prayed for in the complaint.
7 We have gone through the contention advanced by the complainant. Ex. C.1 is detailed affidavit of complainant in which he has reiterated the same stand as taken in the complaint. Ex. C.2 is affidavit of Jarmanjeet Singh son of Dilbag Singh who has pleaded in his affidavit that he is cousin of Gursewak Singh complainant and he has also reiterated the same facts as taken by the complainant in his complaint. Ex. C.3 is Bill dated 19.9.2014 issued by the opposite party No. 2 in which it reveals that the complainant has made the payment of Rs. 11,900/- to the opposite party No. 2. Ex. C.4 is service request from which it reveals that the complainant has deposited the mobile set in question with the opposite party No. 1 on 4.4.2015. It has also mentioned on Ex. C.4 that the complainant has reported the problem in the mobile set ‘Auto Off’ It has also been mentioned on the service request Ex. C.4 that mobile set in question is within warranty period. As such from the above said evidence it is clear that the complainant has deposited his mobile set in question with the opposite party No. 1 on 4.4.2015 with problem of auto off and the mobile set in question is within the warranty period. On the other hand, the opposite parties did not appear before this Forum to put forward their defence and they were proceeded exparte despite due service and presumption of truth lies to the un-rebutted evidence. Non returning the mobile set in question after necessary repair constitutes deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party No. 1.
8 In view of above discussion we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to return the mobile set in question to the complainant after proper repair to the satisfaction of the complainant within 45 days. If the mobile set in question is not repairable, the opposite party No. 1 will either to replace the mobile set in question with same make and model with fresh warranty or to return the price of the mobile in question to the complainant, within above said period of 45 days failing which the opposite party No. 1 will also pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deposit of mobile set in question i.e. 4.4.2015 till its realization. The complainant has been physically and mentally harassed by the opposite parties, therefore, the opposite parties are burdened with consolidated compensation of Rs. 5,000/- . Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum
Dated: 10.8.2015
(J.S.Khushdil)
President
(Jaswinder Kaur) (R.D.Sharma)
Member Member
