Hukam Singh filed a consumer case on 05 Mar 2018 against Karan Comm in the Kurukshetra Consumer Court. The case no is 217/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 19 Mar 2018.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.
Complaint Case No.217 of 2017.
Date of institution: 10.10.2017.
Date of decision: 05.03.2018.
Hukam Singh son of Sh. Sadhu Ram, resident of Village Jalaludin Majra, Post Office Prehladpur, District Kurukshetra.
…Complainant.
Versus
….Respondents.
BEFORE SH. G.C.Garg, President.
Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Ops exparte.
ORDER
This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Hukam Singh against Karan Communication and others, the opposite parties.
2. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased LYF Wind-7 mobile set bearing Model No.LS-5016 for a sum of Rs.7,000/- from the Op No.1 vide bill No.696 dt. 02.01.2017. It is alleged that after some times of its purchase, the mobile set in question became defective with the problem of shutting down automatically. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.1 for its repair and the Op No.1 sent the mobile set to the Op No.2. The Op No.2 after seeing the mobile set told the complainant that the defect in the mobile set is not repairable and they will provide the replacement of mobile set in question. The complainant approached the Ops several times to provide the new mobile set but the Ops did not do so. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to replace the mobile set with the new one or to refund the cost of mobile set and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.
3. Upon notice, the OPs No.2 & 3 did not appear before this Forum and opted to proceed exparte vide order dt. 06.02.2018, whereas initially Op No.1 appeared in person but did not appear on today i.e. 05.03.2018 and Op No.1 was also proceeded exparte.
4. We have heard the complainant in person and perused the record carefully and minutely.
5. From the cash memo, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 02.01.2017 for the sale consideration of Rs.7,000/-. From the perusal of letter, Ex.C3 written by the complainant to Op No.2, it is clear that the complainant demanded the photo-copy of job-sheet bearing No.8011072543 dt. 01.09.2017. So, from the said letter, it is clear that the unit became defective on 01.09.2017 i.e. within the warranty/guarantee period. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced from Op No.3, who is manufacturer of the unit in question.
6. In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OP No.3 to replace the hand set of the complainant with new one of the same model. The complainant is directed to deposit the old hand set along with bill and accessories with the service center of the company. The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.3. File be consigned to record after due compliance. Copy of this order be communicated to the parties.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:05.03.2018.
(G.C.Garg)
President.
(Kapil Dev Sharma)
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.