Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 642.
Instituted on : 13.11.2017.
Decided on : 23.10.2018.
Smt. Darshana w/o Sh. Prem Kumar R/o H.No.1055/24 Vijay Nagar, Near Jhajjar Chungi Rohtak-124001.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Madhvi Enterprises, Shop No.1348/49B, Chhotu Ram Chowk Rohtak-124001.
- M/s Gionee E-9, Block No.B-1, Ground Floor Mohan Cooperative Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SMT.SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Naseeb Vats, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a mobile set of Gionee, make Model M-5 from the opposite patty No.1 for Rs.12200/-. That there were some problems in the mobile set so he made complaints to the OPs on 14.04.2017 and also visited the service centre four times but was disappointed as they only offered him to repair the said mobile. That complainant sent a legal notice dated 24.05.2017 asking the opposite parties to replace the mobile set but to no effect. That there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the mobile set and also to pay compensation of Rs.73680/- alongwith interest and cost of litigation as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party no.1 received back duly served but none appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.12.2017 of this Forum. Opposite party No.2 also did not appear despite service through registered post and as such after expiry of statutory period of 30 days, OP no.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 20.03.2018 of this Forum.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant had purchased the mobile on 27.01.2017 and as per job sheet Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 there were issues regarding display, waves on LCD etc. and some parts were repaired/replaced by the OPs. But as per the complainant the defects could not be removed by the OPs despite his repeated requests and service of legal notice and the mobile was not replaced. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 & 2 have not appeared before this Forum for the rebuttal against the pleadings of the complainant placed on the file and remained exparte in the present case. As such all the allegations leveled against the opposite parties regarding defective mobile set stands proved. As the complainant has lost faith in the company and its product, so it is better to refund the price of mobile phone.
6. Accordingly the complaint is allowed and it is directed that opposite party No.2 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set i.e. to pay Rs.12200/-(Rupees twelve thousand two hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 13.11.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is also directed to hand over the mobile in question to the OP No.2 at the time of payment by the OP No.2, if the same is in his possession.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
23.10.2018.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member
