Complainant  Pushap Kumar through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite party be directed to return the mobile set after removing the defect and also be directed to give Rs.1100/- which he received from him or give new set to him. Opposite party be also directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as mental pain, agony and harassment to him, in the interest of justice.

2.      The case of the complainant in brief is that he has a mobile mark Samsung J-5 and the screen glass of the same has been broken, but the functioning of mobile is properly working. Thus he approached to the opposite party for its repair and opposite party kept the said mobile for repair on 7.1.2018 and demanded Rs.1100/- from him for its repair and   assured that he will take the said mobile on next day i.e. on 8.1.2018 but no  receipt was issued to him. He visited the shop of opposite party on 8.1.2018 at about 7.00 PM and opposite party handed over the said mobile after its repair and after few hours the said phone was out of order. He approached the opposite party many times but they linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. On 24.1.2018, he alongwith his friend Sahil again approached to the opposite party  and requested him to remove the defect and handover the same to him, but the opposite party flatly refused to remove the defect from the mobile and also refused to hand over the mobile to him and insulted him in front of his friend. Thus, there is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice issued to the opposite party had not been received back. Case called several times but none had come present on behalf of opposite party. Hence, opposite party was  proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.3.2018        

4.     Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 and of Sh.Natish Kumar alias Sahil Ex.C-2 alongwith other documents Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 and closed the evidence. 

5.       After going through the file very minutely it has become clear that complainant handed over his J5 Samsung make mobile to opposite party for its repair and as per version of complainant, the opposite party demanded Rs.1100/- for its repair and the complainant gave the same to opposite party. After repair, the mobile  set was delivered to complainant but after few hours the said mobile set was out of order and it was again handed over to opposite party for repair, who issued a job/visiting card to the complainant and asked to come after some days. But when after few days i.e. on 24.1.2018, complainant visited to opposite party for getting the repaired mobile, the opposite party flatly refused to repair and hand over the defective mobile to complainant rather he insulted him badly in front of his friend namely Sahil and other persons who were present at the shop of opposite party at that time and this act of opposite party has caused mental harassment to complainant and he prayed for return of repair money alongwith compensation from opposite party.

6.        The complainant has produced on file his own affidavit Ex.C1 and another affidavit of his friend Ex.C2 who has stated in the affidavits about the whole incident. Ex.3 is the visiting card of opposite party which establishes that complainant has gone to opposite party for repair of mobile and he has given his visiting card as a token to complainant and Ex.C4 is the backside of the visiting card on which job card Number has been written as J5 and mobile No.8872507612 is also given. It proves that mobile of J5 model was handed over to opposite party for repair and as a token he issued this card. The point that complainant paid Rs.1100/- for the repair of the mobile and the mobile is still in possession of opposite party is not supported by any evidence as there is no receipt of payment made by complainant to opposite party placed on the file and possession of mobile phone lying with opposite party is also not clearly proved by producing any receipt slip etc. given by opposite party. But we have no solid reason to disbelieve the version of complainant as no one appeared and presented the case on behalf of opposite party and opposite party was proceeded exparte and all the allegations and evidence in support of the complainant remained unrebutted.

7.          From above discussion, it is totally established that complainant must have felt harassed both mentally and physically by the conduct of opposite party and the same amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for compensation for the same.

8.       In view of the detailed discussion, this Forum finds force in the allegations of complainant and opposite party is held liable for deficiency in service. The complaint of the complainant succeeds and opposite party is directed to repair the defective mobile upto the satisfaction of complainant failing which, return the amount of Rs.1100/-, taken for repairing the defective set and hand it over to complainant alongwith Rs.3,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses. Entire compliance to be made within 30 days on receipt of the copy of this order.

9.           Copy of the orders be issued to the parties free of cost and file be consigned to record. Announced in open Forum. The complaint could not be decided within prescribed time due to rush of work.

 ANNOUNCED:                   (Rachna Arora)                   (Rajita Sareen)

 September 24, 2018.                Member                         Presiding Member

 MK