Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/269/2021

Raj Kumar S/o Hukam Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manoj Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

09 May 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    269 of 2021.

                                                                   Date of institution: 13.09.2021.

                                                                   Date of decision:  09.05.2022

 

Raj Kumar s/o Shri Hukam Chand, r/o H.No.198/1, Jhansa Road Chowk, Masita House, Thanesar, Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

Manoj Kumar, Prop. of Om Mobile Repair Centre, Opp. Saraswati Misthan Bhandar, Jhansa Road, near Shyama Colony, Kurukshetra.

...Respondent.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Opposite Party ex-parte, vide order dated 19.04.2022.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “Act”).

2.                By way of complaint in hand, complainant alleged that on 30.07.2021, he went to the shop of OP for getting repair the charging jack of his mobile set Redmi Note 3, upon which, the OP told that jack is loose, that’s why creating problem in charging the mobile phone, which needs replacement and he gave his consent in this regard. The OP replaced the charging jack and he paid Rs.150/-, as demanded by the OP, through his UPI Google Pay. Thereafter, the complainant observed that the screen of mobile is off and when charged, it was not working and its touch was gone totally. He contacted to OP in this regard, who asked for some to resolve his grievance. He also issued a notice to the OP from his Whatsapp number. The OP took his mobile number to inform him in this regard, but till date, the OP had not responded about status of mobile phone and the same is remained in the custody of OP till today. He sent his neighbor to the OP, who found that mobile phone was not repaired and OP told that its touch was not working, so it needs replaced. By not repairing his mobile phone by the OP, is an act of deficiency in service on the part of the OP, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OP, before this Commission.

3.                On receipt of complaint, its notice was ordered to be issued against the OP, through Process Server of this Commission and the said notice was delivered upon OP on 22.03.2022, as per report of concerned Process Server, but despite that, OP failed to appear before this Commission either in person or through any advocate on 19.04.2022 and ultimately, he was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte on that date, by this Commission.         

4.                 In order to support his case, complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with document Ex.C-1 and closed the same.

5.                We have heard the complainant and gone through the case file carefully.

6.                The complainant argued that on 30.07.2021, he went to the shop of OP for getting repair the charging jack of his mobile set Redmi Note 3, upon which, the OP told that jack is loose, that’s why creating problem in charging the mobile phone, which needs replacement. The OP replaced the charging jack and he paid Rs.150/-, as demanded by the OP, through his UPI Google Pay. Thereafter, the complainant observed that the screen of mobile is off and when charged, it was not working and its touch was gone totally. He contacted to OP in this regard, who asked for some to resolve his grievance. He also issued a notice to the OP from his Whatsapp number. The OP took his mobile number to inform him in this regard, but till date, the OP had not responded about status of mobile phone and the same is remained in the custody of OP till today. By not repairing his mobile phone by the OP, is an act of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

7.                As per complainant, on 30.07.2021, he got repaired charging jack of his mobile, from the OP, after paying Rs.150/-, through his UPI Google Pay, but thereafter, he observed that the screen of mobile is off and when charged, it was not working and in this regard, he contacted to OP, who asked to give him sometime to rectify the mobile phone. In this regard, he made a complaint to the OP through his Whatsapp number, but till today, despite repeated requests, the OP neither repaired the mobile phone nor returned the same, which is an act of deficiency on service on the part of OP. To support his contentions, the complainant produced his Whatsapp complaint to the OP as well as copy of payment of Rs.150/- made to the OP through his Google Pay account as Ex.C1 on the case file, whereas, on the other hand, the OP failed to appear before this Commission, despite receipt of notice of complaint, by this Commission. Non-contesting the complaint, by the OP, despite receipt of notice, by this Commission, means, OP had has nothing to say in its defence. In this way, this Commission has left with no other option except to believe the version of the complainant as true.

8.                 Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the OP, despite receipt of Rs.150/- as repair charges, failed to redress the grievance of the mobile phone of the complainant, as he, neither repaired nor returned the mobile phone to the complainant, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

9.                In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint against the OP and direct the OP to return the mobile phone in question to the complainant, after repairing the same, free of costs. The OP is further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, due to an act of deficiency in service, on the part of the OP. The OP is further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 15 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 71/72 of the Act, against the OP. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Dated: 09.05.2022.

    

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    (Member).                                     DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.