Haryana

Karnal

CC/471/2023

Kala Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Johar Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Angrez Singh Pannu

18 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                         Complaint No. 471 of 2023

                                                          Date of instt.23.08.2023

                                                          Date of Decision 18.06.2024

 

Kala Singh alias Kulwinder Singh son of Shri Raghbir Singh, resident of Village Nimnabad Tehsil Safirdon, District Jind.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Johar Communication Shop No.5, Near Karnal Motors, Opposite Bus Stand, Karnal 132001, through its partners Nikhil and Sunny.

2.     Branch Head/Service Center Manager (VIVO Mobile Service Center) SCO 112, Ist Floor, Old Tehsil Complex, Old G.T. Road, near Haryana Photostat, Karnal. 

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.Suman Singh………..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri Angrej Singh, counsel for complainant.

                   OP no.1 ex-parte VOD 26.10.2023.

                   OP No.2 ex-parte VOD 23.11.2023

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that on 29.01.2023, complainant had purchased a mobile make VIVO Y22 from OP No.1 for a sum of Rs.18,000/- vide bill No.645. After three days, the mobile started giving hanging problem, touch problem etc and when the complainant approached OP No.1 who updated the software of the same. After some day i.e. on 15.05.2023, again the same problem occurred then the complainant again approached OP No.1 and OP No.1 sent the mobile phone to OP No.2 who again updated the software but again on 16.05.2023, the mobile phone was not working properly. On 16.05.2023, the complainant gave the mobile phone to OP No.2 for repairing and they kept the mobile for six days and after six days, the OP No.2 told that there is motherboard problem and he has to pay Rs.7/8 thousand for repairing the same, while the mobile was under warranty period. When the complainant requested the OP No.2 to repair the same under warranty, they refused to do so. Complainant sent a registered legal notice to OPs but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Despite service of the notices, OPs did not appear and proceeded against exparte, vide order of this Commission dated 26.10.2023 and 24.11.2023 respectively.

3.             The complainant led his evidence.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of legal notice Ex.C1, copy of postal receipt Ex.C2, copy of bill Ex.C3 and copy of delivery receipt Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 31.01.2024 by suffering separate statement.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the complainant.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that since the day of purchase of mobile phone in question there are problems of hanging, etc and despite knowing the fact that the mobile in question is under warranty the OPs demanded Rs.7000/Rs.8000 from the complainant for replacing the mother board. Thus, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

7.             As per version of the complainant he approached the OPs for repair of the mobile set in question but OP No.2 demanded the repair charges from the complainant despite knowing the fact that the mobile in question is under warranty. From the bill Ex.C3, it is proved that the complainant had purchased the mobile in question from the OP no.1 on 29.01.2023 and from the delivery receipt Ex.C3, it is proved that the complainant gave the mobile phone to OP No.2 on 22.05.2023 for repairing and they returned the same without repairing the same on account of “due to cost reason”. From the bill Ex.C3, it is proved that on 22.05.2023, the mobile in question was under warranty period and under the warranty period the OP No.2 was bound to repair/replace the mobile in question free of cost but they did not do so. Hence, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2.

8.             To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant, OPs did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Thus, the evidence of complainant goes unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.  Hence, complainant is entitled for the refund of cost of mobile phone i.e. Rs.18,000/ alongwith compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony and towards litigation expenses.

9.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP No.2 to pay Rs.18000/- as cost of the mobile set in question to the complainant. We further direct the OP no.2 to pay Rs.8000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expense. The complaint qua OP No.1 stands dismissed being seller of mobile in question. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

Dated:18.06.2024

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

        (Vineet Kaushik)                (Dr. Suman Singh)

               Member                             Member