STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

First Appeal No  :       256 of 2015

Date of Institution:       18.03.2015

Date of Decision :        09.04.2015

Sushil Kumar s/o Sh. Dhara Singh, Resident of Village Siwani Bolan, Tehsil and District Hisar.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      Madan Mobile Gallery, Hisar Road, Agroha Mor, Agroha, District Hisar through its proprietor/owner.

2.      Fly Customer Care Service Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon through M.D.

3.      Fly Service Centre, Global, Communication, 259, Ist Floor, Green Square Market, Hisar through its Manager.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               None.

                                                   O R D E R

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal was filed on March 18^th, 2015 and was fixed for motion hearing for today. None has come present on behalf of the appellant.

2.      Sushil Kumar-complainant purchased a mobile handset of Fly M.V. 264 make from Madan Mobile Gallery, Hisar-opposite party/respondent No.1 for Rs.2200/-. It was manufactured by Fly Customer Care Service Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon-opposite party/respondent No.2. Fly Service Centre-opposite party No.3 is the service centre. The appellant alleged that after three days of its purchase, the mobile hand set did not work being defective. He approached the respondents to repair or replace the same but to no avail. He filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Hisar.

3.      Notice being issued, the respondents-opposite parties did not contest the complaint and they were proceeded exparte.

4.      After evaluating the exparte evidence, the District Forum vide order dated February 18^th, 2015 accepted the complaint and issued direction to the respondents-opposite parties as under:-

“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.

6.      However, primary responsibility to comply the order shall be of opposite party No.2, being the manufacturing company of the mobile hand set. In case compliance of the order is made by opposite parties No.1 & 3, as the case may be, then the complying party shall be duly indemnified by opposite party No.2, with interest @ 10% per annum.”

5.      Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant has come up in appeal for enhancement of compensation.

6.      Admittedly, the appellant purchased mobile handset worth Rs.2200/- from the respondents. The District Forum vide impugned order ordered to replace the mobile hand set or to refund the price Rs.2200/- to the complainant besides Rs.500/- as compensation. Inspite of that the appellant is not satisfied.

7.      The spirit of the Consumer Protection Act is to redress the grievances of the consumers. The Consumer Fora have not been established as earning profit cell. In the circumstances, no fault could be found with the impugned order which would call for interference of this Commission.  The appeal being meritless, therefore, is dismissed.

CL