DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.96 of 15
DATE OF INSTITUTION: -31.3.2015
DATE OF ORDER: -13-07 -2015
Vikaram Arya son of Shri Inderjeet Singh, resident of Naya Bazar, Bhiwani, tehsil and district Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- M/s Jeenu Gift Shop, 52, Adarsh College Market, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani, tehsil and district Bhiwani, through its Prop./Owner.
- Sukhbir Saini, owner/Prop. Xelo Service Centre, Near Vodaphone Street, Meham Gate, Bhiwani, tehsil and district Bhiwsani.
- Lawa International Ltd. A-56, Sector-64, Noida (UP).
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member
Present: - Shri N.L.Saini, Adv. for complainant.
OPs ex parte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that he had purchased one Handset of Xelo Company for a sum of Rs. 19,000/- from OP No.1 vide bill No.47061. It is alleged that soon after purchase the Hand Set became defective within warranty period and complaint was lodged with the opposite parties. The complainant alleged that on the asking of opposite party No.1 he visited the service centre of respondent company several times and requested to repair the same but it flatly refused to do the needful. Hence the complainant was deprived of use of the Hand Set and suffered a loss. Now the complainant has claimed the replacement of the Hand Set along with compensation and costs by way of filing present complainant.
2. Opposite Parties have failed to come present despite service. Hence, they were proceeded against ex parte by this Forum vide order dated 6.5.2015.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure CW1/A to CW1/C affidavits and photo stat copy of bill Annexure “A”
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. In the evidence of complainant, he tendered affidavits of Vikaram Arya son of Inderjeet Singh, resident of Bhiwani, complainant, Sandeep son of Sharif Khan, resident of Bhiwani and Ajay son of Chander Singh, resident of village Chang. Counsel for the complainant submitted that Sandeep and Ajay Kumar are employees of OP No.2 and they have stated in their affidavits that the complainant handed over his Mobile Hand Set to Sukhbir Saini, official of OP No.2 on 1.9.2014 and since then the Mobile Hand Set of the complainant is lying in the centre of OP No.2. The counsel for the complainant also filed ID of the above said both persons, stated to be the employees of OP No.2. He referred bill dated 3.8.2014 Annexure “A” and stated that the complainant had purchased the Mobile Hand Set from OP No.1 vide bill Annexure “A” for Rs.9000/-. The evidence adduced by the complainant before this District Forum has un-rebutted and unchallenged, because the Ops did not choose to appear before this District Forum and contest the case of the complainant. In view of the pleadings and evidence produced by the complainant, we have come to the conclusion that the Mobile Hand Set is lying with OP No.2 and OP No.2 has failed to deliver the Hand Set after repair or replace the same with new one. Keeping in view the facts of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to replace and deliver new Mobile Hand Set of the same value to the complainant. This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the Ops shall be liable to pay Rs.1500/- as compensation to the complainant, in addition to new Mobile Hand Set.
Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 13.07.2015. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anita Sheoran), (Balraj Singh),
Member. Member.
