Per NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER
The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a XOLO A600 mobile phone online from Ebay on 26-7-2014 worthRs 5969/- with IMEI number 911332302472498. It is alleged by the complainant that within one month of the purchase of the phone developed a problem and it kept on hanging every time. The complainant took the phone to OP 1 as the phone was under warranty. The OP1 asked the complainant to submit with them vide work order No. 3100008181828 dated 8-10-2014. The complainant further alleged that after receiving the phone from OP1, he found the same problem persisting in phone. It is further stated by the complainant that despite submitting the phone to the OP1 5-6 times, the issue was never resolved by it. Complainant further stated that the OP had sent him an e-mail dated 21-10-2014 vide which OP offered him another handset. But when the complainant went to collect the same, he found that it is an old one. He has, therefore, approached tis forum for redressal of his grievance.
Notice of the complaint were sent to the OP by registered post on 12-12-2014 as well as on 27-1-2015. The notice were not received back unserved and therefore service was presumed to have been effected on the Ops. Since none had appeared on behalf of the Ops they were ordered to be proceeded with ex-parte.
In his ex-parte evidence, the complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of the complaint.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
The complainant has placed on record copy of job sheet dated 8-10-2014 and 21-11-2014 whereby he had handed over the handset to OP1. A perusal of job sheet shows that the handset had been delivered with the problem of “Hangup”. The complainant has also placed on record the copy of e-mail dated 24-10-2014 through which OP offered the complainant another handset. This clearly shows that the contention of the complainant is true that there is a defect in the mobile which cannot be cured. The OP despite offering another handset had not delivered the same to the complainant. A letter dated 12.11.2014 which the complainant had sent to the OP has also been placed on record. From the unrebutted testimony of the complainant as well as the document placed on record, we are convinced that the story put forth by the complainant is true. We hold OP2 deficient in rendering services to the complainant and direct as under:
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5969/- (cost of handset) alongwith interest @ 10 % p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 26-7-2014.
- Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards compensation as well as litigation expenses.
The OP1 shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum. IF the OP1 fail to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................
