DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

   CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.295 of 15

                                         DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 26-10-2015

                                                   DATE OF ORDER: 10-11-2016

Gourav son of Shri Ram Parkash son of Shri Rohtash, resident of Caunt Road, Dadri Gate, Laxmi Nagar, near Sankat Mochan Bala Ji Mandir, HP Petrol Pump K Piche, Bhiwani through Ram Parkash father of minor Gourav.

            ……………Complainant.

VERSUS               

1. Krishna Mobile Gallery, Caunt Road, Dadri Gate, Bhiwani.

1. Spice Care Service Center, Saini Mobile Point, New Bazar Sukhdev Bhawan, Bhiwani, Haryana.

1. Registered Office: Spice Retial Ltd. S Global Knowledge Park, 19A & 19B, Sector-125 Noida (UP).

………….. Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE: -    Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.

Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

Mrs. Sudesh, Member.

Present:-    Complainant in person.

                 Ops no. 1 & 2 exparte.

                 Sh. Madan Singh Parmar, Advocate for OP no. 3.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                    In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that on 01.05.2015 he had purchased Spice Model Number MI-431 from OP no. 1 with one year warranty.  It is submitted that within a month of the purchase of the mobile handset the mobile handset developed fault and was not working properly.  He further submitted that he visited the service centre of the company of OP no. 2 on 05.06.2015, 12.08.2015 vide job sheet of the said dates but the OP could not rectify the defects of the mobile set despite various visits of the complainant.  The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Ops he has to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss.  Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he has to file the present complaint & prayed for repair the said mobile and seeking compensation.

2.                OPs no. 1 & 2 have failed to come present.  Hence they were  proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.07.2016.

3.                 Opposite party no. 3 on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the answering respondent possesses a goodwill and have an established market and have assumed a good reputation over the years in respect of the business, which they carry out.  It is submitted that under ordinary circumstances bona fide action has been taken by the answering respondent, which cannot be held to be as deficiency in service.  It is submitted that the complainant has failed to attach copy of the invoice with his complaint, he is not a ‘consumer’ and this complaint is not maintainable.  It is submitted that the answering respondent has no idea about the said conversation held between complainant and OP no. 2.  It is submitted that complainant has alleged that he visited ASC for rectification of defects in alleged handset twice but he has not attached a single job sheet. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.                     In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-2 alongwith supporting affidavit.

5.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the complainant in person and counsel for the OP no. 3.

6.                The complainant reiterated the contents of his complaint.  He submitted that within a month of the purchase of the mobile handset the mobile handset developed fault and was not working properly.  He further submitted that he visited the service centre of the company of OP no. 2 on 05.06.2015, 12.08.2015 vide job sheet of the said dates but the OP could not rectify the defects of the mobile set despite various visits of the complainant.

7.                    Learned Counsel for OP no. 3 reiterated the contents of the reply.  He submitted that the limited warranty of the mobile handset and battery has already expired.  The complainant is not entitled to claim any relief from the answering respondent/OP.

8.                     In the context of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the material on record.  The complainant had purchased the mobile handset in question on 01.05.2015 vide bill no. 264 is Annexure C-1 for Rs. 3600/- and after about 1 month it became faulty.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 3400/- to the complainant as full and final settlement of the claim of the complainant, against his old mobile handset.  The complainant is directed to deposit his mobile handset with the service centre of the company to get the payment.   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:.10-11-2016.                

                                                                                                  (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                                                       President

                                                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                         Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

                        (Anamika Gupta)         (Sudesh)

                            Member                   Member