Case of complainant Sushil Kumar is that on 27.4.2013, he had purchased one mobile hand set of Fly M.V. 264 for Rs.2200/- from Madan Mobile Gallery, Agroha i.e. from opposite party No.1, with warranty of one year. Fly, Customer Care service i.e. opposite party No.2 is the manufacturing company of the mobile hand set; whereas Fly Service Centre, Global Communication, Hisar i.e. opposite party No.3 is its service centre. That after three days of the purchase, the mobile hand set, stopped working. The defect was also that after making any call from it, there used to be a message, regarding balance of the amount; That till that message is deleted, it was not giving ring for any incoming call. So he took the mobile hand set to the Service Centre i.e. to opposite party No.3, when as many as trice its PSP board was changed but still the mobile hand set showed the same defects. It was not in proper working order; hence, this complaint, filed on 6.2.2014; for a direction to the opposite parties, either for replacement of the mobile hand set or in alternative, for the refund of its price of Rs.2200/-, with up to date interest besides damages for his harassment and litigation expenses.
2. All the three opposite parties were duly proceeded ex-parte vide order of this forum dated 6.5.2014 and 18.11.2014.
3. In ex-parte evidence, complainant has placed on record Ex.C-1 copy of purchase bill dated 27.4.2013 showing the price of the mobile hand set as Rs.2200/-, Ex.C-2 copy of job sheet of the service centre and Ex.C-3 his own supporting affidavit.
4. There is no reason to disbelieve or to dis-credit, aforesaid pleaded case of the complainant, which gets full support and corroboration, not only from his own supporting affidavit, but also from aforesaid documentary evidence on record, including copy of purchase bill and copy of job sheet of the service centre. Bare perusal of copy of job sheet Ex. C-2, shows that there was problem in the mobile hand set regarding its software/Bug/Data service (Data,Fax,GPRS etc.) which were not working. Since, the opposite parties have also opted for being proceeded ex-parte, so this fact also points towards the correctness of the case of the complainant. Therefore, it is proved that just after three days of purchasing the mobile hand set, it showed defects. It was not working properly. The defect could not be removed by the service centre. It is certainly deficiency of service, on the part of the opposite parties.
5. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite parties, either to replace the mobile hand set of the complainant. Otherwise to refund its price of Rs.2200/-. Complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.500/-, for his harassment, mental agony etc. against the opposite parties, who shall be jointly and severely liable to comply the order.
