Per Sh. RakeshKapoor, President
On 28.8.2014 , the complainant had purchased a mobile made Karbon Titanium Octane Plus from OP2 for a sum of Rs 15500/-.
Page 1. Order CC/75/2015
The handset was warranteed for a period of one year. It is
alleged by the complainant that the handset did not work properly from the date of its purchase. It would automatically switched off and was also suffering from the problem of hanging/ no network. The complainant had taken up the matter with the Ops and had deposited the handset with OP1 for replacement on 30.10.2014. it is alleged by him that neither the handset was replaced nor his price was refunded to him despite several visits to OP1. Hence, the complaint.
The Ops served by registered notice dated 24.3.2015.The Ops chose not to contest and have been proceeded with ex-parte.
In his ex-parte evidence the complainant filed his own affidavit dated 19.1.2015 and has supported the contents of the complaint. We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
The complainant has placed on record a copy of the invoice dated 28.8.2014 and a copy of job sheet dateddated 30.10.2014 showing that he had deposited the handset with OP1 and OP3 for repairs . the affidavit filed by the complainant has not been rebutted by the Ops by any evidence whatsoever . There is nothing on record as to why the evidence led by the complainant should not be believed. We are of the considered opinion that the Ops have been deficient in providing services to the complainant. The mobile handset which was purchased by the complainant on 28.8.2014 had not work properly even for a few months and was deposited by the customer care center in October 2014. The handset is still lying with the Ops and has not been delivered to the complainant repaired or otherwise.
Page 2. Order CC/75/2015
In R. Sachdev Vs. ICICI Bank, , FA762/06 decided on 29.11.2006 the Hon’ble State Commission held:-
“ what is the use of such good or article if it loses its utility after a period of one month of its purchase . The object of the Consumer Protection Act, it is safeguard the interests of the consumers against the unscrupulous manufactures or traders for selling substandard or defective goods.”
In another case titled Col. Ravinder Pal Brar Vs. Asian Motors, FA 73/06 decided on 28.9.2007 , the Hon’ble State Commission held:-
“ The disputes between the consumer and the service providers and traders should be ended once for all by calling upon the traders and manufacturers to refund the cost of the goods with adequate compensation as the possibility of the new goods also being defective and not being up to the satisfaction of the consumers, cannot be ruled out and in that case parties will be relegated to square one and will suffer another bout of litigation.”
In view of the abovecited judgments we direct OP1 as under:
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 15,500/- along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of institution of this complaint i.e. 24.3.2015.
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 7500/- as compensation for the mental pain and harassment suffered by him.
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2500/- as cost of litigation.
The OP1 shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. IF the OP1 fail to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
