Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1. Anmol Deep Sandhu has brought the instant complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant purchased online mobile set model Intex Aqua Speed White Champagne Vide IMEI No. 911437902917683 on 20.10.2015 for an amount of Rs. 6545/- from opposite party No.2 against Invoice No. 202010150001 having one year warranty of its free service and repairs. During the warranty period and hardly after purchase of four months of the said mobile set, it created display and handfree problem and was not working properly. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 being authorized service centre of opposite party No.2 , on 8.2.2016 and brought the defects to their knowledge. Opposite party No.1 kept the mobile hand set and issued job sheet to the complainant and asked the complainant to come after three week. But the opposite party No.1 handed over the mobile set to the complainant after more than one month and kept the jobsheet in their custody. After six months from the first complaint, the said handset again created touch auto working problem. The complainant again approached opposite party No.1 on 30.8.2016, who issued job sheet No. 608306418011T001. Thereafter the complainant approached opposite party No.1 more than six times i.e. 3.9.2016, 6.9.2016, 7.9.2016, 9.9.2016, 12.9.2016 and on 23.9.2016 but every time opposite party No.1 made one pretext or the other . Till date the opposite parties did not solve the said problem. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 regularly to collect his mobile set, but to no avail. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint:-

(i) Opposite parties be directed to refund the sale price of the handset alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization ;

(ii) Opposite parties be also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 3500/-.

Hence, this complaint.

2. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 did not opt to put in appearance despite service of notice, as such they were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.

3. In his bid to prove the case complainant in his ex-parte evidence tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of job sheet Ex.C-2, copy of bill Ex.C-3, copy of invoice of new mobile dated 27.9.2016 Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.

4. We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

5. From the perusal of the record, it becomes evident that complainant purchased online one mobile handset model Intex Aqua Speed White Champagne having IMEI No. 911437902917683 on 20.10.2015 for an amount of Rs. 6545/-. Copy of the invoice accounts for Ex.C-3. It has been the case of the complainant that within the warranty period, hardly after purchase of four months of the mobile hand set in dispute, it created display and handfree problem and was not working properly. For the said purpose complainant approached opposite party No.1 being authorized service centre of opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 after retaining the mobile handset for a period of more than one month returned the same after due repair. But, however, after six months thereafter the handset again created touch auto working problem and for that purpose, complainant again approached opposite party No.1 on 30.8.2016. Opposite party No.1 issued job sheet , copy whereof is Ex.C-2. But, however, opposite party No.1 has been retaining the mobile handset in dispute. Since then the complainant approached opposite party No.1 time and again for returning the mobile handset in dispute after due repairs, but to no effect.

6. The evidence adduced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record as opposite parties, despite due service, did not opt to appear and contest the complaint and thereby the opposite parties impliedly admitted the claim of the complainant, which further shows that the opposite parties had no defence to offer for contesting the case of the complainant. The very fact that opposite party No.1 has been retaining the mobile handset in dispute since 30.8.2016 goes on to show that the mobile handset in dispute was beyond the scope of repair. In such a situation, the effective remedy available to the complainant would be the refund of the price of the mobile handset in dispute. The act and conduct of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service.

7. Consequently we allow the instant complaint ex-parte with directions to opposite parties to refund the sale price of the mobile handset in dispute amounting to Rs.6545/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint until full and final recovery. Cost of the litigation are assessed at Rs. 2000/-. Compliance of this order be made within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which, complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum. . Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 22.12.2016

/R/