DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.
Complaint No. CC/15/79 of 20/04/2015
Decided on 13/08/2015
Bhupinder Raina @ Sunny Raina S/o Late Shri Jagjit Singh r/o 1079/2, Tripuri Town, Patiala.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s Mobile Planet, A-60, Sarpanch Market, near Toll Tax, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi-96.
2. Ganesh Electricals, shop 27, City Centre, 22 no. Phatak, Patiala.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the
Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM
Sh. D. R. Arora, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
Smt. Sonia Bansal, Member
Present:
For Complainant : Sh. Ritin Vatrana Advocate.
For Opposite party no. 2 : Ex-parte.
ORDER
NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER:
1. The complainant purchased one mobile phone make Micromax A 117 vide invoice dt.17/01/2014 from OP no.1. It is averred that during the warranty period the mobile phone stopped working and on 03/01/2015, the complainant approached OP no.2 and deposited the Mobile phone with Op no.2 vide proper job sheet and Op no.2 told the complainant to collect the mobile phone after one week. Accordingly the complainant approached Op no.2 on 10/01/2015 but Op no.2 told the complainant that due to some technical problem, the defect in the mobile phone could not be repaired and told the complainant to wait for another 8-10 days. On 21/01/2015, the complainant contacted OP no.2 but OP no.2 kept on lingering on the matter under one pretest or the other. Since 03/01/2015 the mobile phone has been lying with Op no.2 who has neither repaired nor replaced the mobile phone. The defect occurred in the mobile phone during the warranty period and the OP was bound to rectify the defect but it failed to do so and it amounted to deficiency of service on its part.
2. On 27/2/2015, the complainant got served a legal notice upon OPs but to no effect. Ultimately, the complainant approached this Forum u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ( for short the Act).
3. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against Op no.2 only, who failed to appear despite service and was thus proceeded against ex-parte.
4. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit along with other documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and his counsel closed the evidence.
5. The complainant failed to file written arguments. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and gone through the evidence placed on record.
6. The complainant purchased one mobile phone from Op no.1 for an amount of Rs. 13900/- vide invoice i.e. Ex.C-1. During warranty period the mobile phone stopped working and the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP no.2 on 3/1/2015 vide job sheet i.e. Ex.C-2. OP no.2 told the complainant to collect the mobile phone after one week and the complainant approached OP no.2 on 10/01/2015 and then on 21/1/2015 but Op no.2 failed to rectify the problem. Since 03/01/2015 the mobile phone is lying with OP no.2 who has neither rectified the defect nor replaced the mobile phone. The complainant also served a legal notice Ex.C-3 upon OPs but to no use. As the defect occurred in the mobile phone during the warranty period, OP was liable to rectify the defect but it failed to do so and it amounted to deficiency of service on the part of OP no.2.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to OP no.2 to rectify the defect in the mobile phone to the satisfaction of the complainant and if that is not possible to get it replaced with a new one of the same make from OP no.1 with requisite warranty. OP is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.3500/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant which is inclusive of the cost of litigation. Order be complied by OP no.2 within a period of one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Pronounced
Dated: 13/08/2015.
Sonia Bansal D. R. Arora Neelam Gupta
Member President Member
