Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 180.
Instituted on : 01.04.2019.
Decided on : 25.11.2019.
Kavita w/o Sh. Praveen Kumar R/o Vill. Anwal, Tehsil Kalanaur, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Manager, Global Mobile Care.331/6, Opp. C.R.Institute of Law, Delhi Road, Rohtak, Haryana-124001.
- Durga Enterprises, 1333/30,Vijay Nagar, Medicine Market, Rohtak.
- TNS Mobile Private Limited, Flat No.820A, 8th floor, Naurang BHouse, 21 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 though its Care Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Parveen Kumar Kalson, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER:
1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that she had purchased a mobile phone of Noklia Company from the opposite party no.2 on dated 31.08.2018. That after some time there was some problem in the software and the mobile phone automatically get switch off and there was also problem in speaker. Complainant contacted the opposite party No.1 for solution of the alleged problems in the mobile but opposite party no.1 only restarted the mobile and gave it back to the complainant. Thereafter complainant contacted the opposite party No.1 on 22.03.2019 , 27.03.2019, but the problem was not resolved and on 28.03.2019 they charged Rs.413/- from the complainant despite the fact that the mobile was within warranty period. That despite repeated repairs of the opposite party no.1, the problem could not be resolved and he requested the opposite parties to refund the price but the same was refused by the opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.11999/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant 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 and notice sent to opposite party no.2 received back with the report of refusal. As such opposite party no.1 & 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.05.2019 of this Forum. Notice sent to opposite party No.3 though registered post but none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.3 and as such opposite party no.3 was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.07.2019 of this Forum.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence on dated 31.10.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, there was defect in the mobile in question from the very beginning, and the complainant contacted the service centre for repair of her alleged mobile. Copy of job sheet Ex.C3 dated 27.03.2019 is also placed on record, as per which there was problem of charging and the same has been shown as ‘out of warranty’ whereas the mobile was within warranty period. As per bill Ex.C4 dated 28.03.2019, opposite party No.1 has charged Rs.413/- from the complainant within warranty period. The contention of the complainant is that despite the repair of mobile in question, the problem is not resolved and as such she has prayed for refund of price of mobile phone. On the other hand, it is also on record that opposite parties did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It is also on record that the manufacturer has not been impleaded as necessary party in the present case. Hence the price of mobile cannot be refunded to the complainant and she is only entitled for the refund of repair charges, which were charged by the opposite party no.1 despite the fact the mobile set in question was within warranty period.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.413/-(Rupees four hundred & thirteen only) and also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party no.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
25.11.2019
…...........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
