Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 252.

                                                          Instituted on     : 23.05.2019.

                                                          Decided on       : 17.09.2019.

Sonu s/o Sh. Bijender R/o H.No.137, Ward No.22, Kishanpura, Rohtak.

                                                                   ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

1. Manager, Global Mobile Care, 331/6, Opp. C.R.Institute of Law, Delhi Road, Rohtak, Haryana-124001.
2. Sikka Teleconnect, Shop No.1126, Near Peer Baba Chottu Chowk, Rohtak-124001.
3. Nokia India Ltd., SP Infocity, Industrial Plot No.243, Udyog Vihar, Phase No.1. Dundahera, Gurgaon, Haryana-122016.

……….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.

                   MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Opposite parties exparte.

                                      ORDER

RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a mobile phone model Nokia 5.1 from opposite party No.2 on dated 31.08.2018 for Rs.14000/- having IMEI no.353388090121916 having bill no.STC/18-02908 dated 31.08.2018. That the alleged mobile phone was defective since its purchase and it had problems having network/no range etc. That complainant contacted the opposite party no.1 on 23.05.2019 and the opposite party No.2 had kept the mobile for sending the same to headquarter. Thereafter, complainant contacted the opposite party no.1 after 15 days but it was replied that company has made no solution to the problem and asked the complainant to come after 10 days.  Thereafter complainant time and again met with the respondent no.1 but they refused to redress the grievance of the complainant. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed either to replace the mobile with new one or to refund the price of mobile set alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause to the complainant.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party No.1 & 2 received back duly served and notice sent to opposite party No.3 did not receive back either served or unserved and opposite party  No.1 to 3  failed to appear before the Forum. As such, opposite party No.1 & 2 vide order dated 16.07.2019 and opposite party No.3 vide order dated 22.08.2019 of this Forum were proceeded against exparte respectively.

3.                          Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and has closed his evidence on dated 17.09.2019.

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 copy bill Ex.C2, complainant had purchased the mobile on 31.08.2018 for Rs.14000/- and as per job sheet Ex.C1 dated 23.02.2019, there was problem of network in the alleged mobile, which could not be removed by the opposite parties despite his repeated request and the mobile in question has not been returned to the complainant by the service centre, which proves deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. 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 and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties stands proved. Hence the complainant is entitled for refund of price of mobile set after deduction of 40% depreciation on it, as the complainant has used the mobile set uninterruptedly for six months.

6.                          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint with direction to the opposite party No.3 i.e. manufacturer  to refund the price of mobile set of Rs.14000/- less 40% depreciation i.e. to pay Rs.8400/-(Rupees eight thousand four hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 23.05.2019 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month 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:

17.09.2019.                                               

                                                          ……………………………….

                                                          Renu Chaudhary, Member.

                                                          .......................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member.