DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.94 of 16
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 06-05.2016
DATE OF ORDER: 11-11-2016
Madan son of Sh. Basesar Lal, resident of Village Kairu Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- M/s Kirti Mobile Gallery and Recharging, Main Bazar, Tosham, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani through its Proprietor/Partner.
- Nokia Mobile Solution and Network India Pvt. Ltd., -Floor, Building –A, D.L.F., Cyber City, Phase-III, Gurgaon, through its m.d./authorized person.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.
Mrs. Sudesh, Member.
Present:- Sh. Shankar Sharma, Advocate for complainant.
Ops no. 1 and 2 exparte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that on 23.06.2015 he had purchased one hand set of Nokia-225 D.S. of white colour from opposite party no.1 vide bill no. 1640 with one year fully guarantee. It is alleged that after one month of purchasing of the aforesaid mobile, it was not working properly and its screen became black. It is alleged that the complainant visited at the shop of OP no. 1 and saw him, said mobile set and assured him that he would got repaired. It is alleged that after lapse of one month, the complainant went to the shop of OP no. 1 and asked his mobile set, upon which OP no. 1 stated that your mobile set is not repaired till now. It is alleged that it is great deficiency in service on the part of the Op no. 1 for not repairing the aforesaid mobile set and further refusal for returning the original bill of the aforesaid mobile set of the complainant. It is alleged that he served a legal notice upon the Ops but Ops neither replied nor repair his defective mobile. It is further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Ops he had to suffer physical harassment and mental agony. 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 with new one along with compensation and costs by way of filing present complaint.
2. OPs no. 1 and 2 have failed to come present. Hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.06.2016 and 29.09.2016.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure CW1/A and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-4 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the counsel for the complainant.
5. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the mobile handset of the complainant is not working properly after one month from the date of purchase of the said mobile set. The complainant handed over his mobile handset to Op no. 1 for repair but after keeping it for a long time the mobile handset was returned to the complainant by Op no.1 that the water has entered in the mobile and it is out of warranty. The complainant also served legal notice dated 21.12.2015 Annexure C-2 on the Ops, postal receipts are Annexure C-1.
6. The Ops did not bother to appear and contest the claim of the complainant. The complainant had purchased the mobile handset in question for Rs. 3200/ from OP no. 1 vide bill dated 23.06.2015 Annexure C-3. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to pay Rs. 3,000/ to the complainant against his old mobile handset. The complainant is directed to deliver his mobile handset to the Ops to get the awarded amount. 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:.11-11-2016.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta) (Sudesh)
Member Member
