Haryana

Panchkula

CC/211/2015

KRISHAN DHULL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MD MPS TELECOM LTD&ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

18 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.   

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	211 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	05.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	18.12.2015

                                                                                          

Krishan Dull s/o Sh.Ranbir Singh, House No.917, Sector-12A, Panchkula.

 

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. Managing Director/C.E.O., MPS Telecom Private Limited, 702 A, Arunachal Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
2. Managing Director/C.E.O., Redington India Ltd., 95 Mount Road, Chennai-600032.
3. Managing Director/C.E.O., TVS Electronics Ltd., South Phase-7A, Second Floor, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600032.
4. M/s Raj Traders, S.C.F. 212, Near Local Bus Stand, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
5. Shivam Communication, Shop No.38, 1^st Floor, Sector-11, Panchkula.

 

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                  Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                             Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.Ranbir Dhull, authorized representative for the complainant. 

Ops No.1 to 5 already ex-parte.

ORDER

(S.P.Attri,Member)

 

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a Mobile make of HTC, Model No. N Desire 816G, bearing IMEI No.355702065147185 for a sum of Rs.19,000/- from Op No.4 vide invoice No.321 (Annexure C-1) dated 18.03.2015. From the very same day, the mobile was not working properly. After two weeks, the mobile started giving problems like hanging and loosing signals, sensor not working and receiver issue. The complainant approached the Op No.5 with the complaint of mobile who kept the mobile for two days and returned it by saying the mobile has been repaired as there was some software problem. After one week, the mobile started giving problems in hanging, voice and the mobile got automatically off. Sometimes battery did not charge. The complainant visited the OP No.4 and explained the problem but the Op No.4 refused to accept the mobile by saying after the sale, he has no liability and gave the mobile to Op No.5. On 04.08.2015, the complainant approached the OP No.5 who received the mobile vide job No.IXC011-0004012 (Annexure C-2) dated 04.08.2015 and assured that the fault would be removed within two days but returned the mobile set after 23 days. The complainant asked about the fault and repair done by the OP No.5 but the Op No.5 refused to tell anything about the repair. Firstly, the Op No.5 got the signatures of the complainant on the satisfaction report and thereafter, handover the mobile set to the complainant. But thereafter, the complainant found that the problem was still there. Thereafter, the complainant again visited the service center i.e. OP No.5 but of no use. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the customer care many times but no response was received. The complainant served legal notice dated 05.09.2015 to the Ops but to no avail and the complainant was forced to buy another mobile of Rs.8000/- to make stopgap arrangement.  This act of the opposite parties No.1 to 5 amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notices were issued to the Ops No.1 to 5 through registered post but none appeared on behalf of Ops No.1 to 5, despite passing of 30 days. It is deemed to be served and the Ops No.1 to 5 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 02.12.2015.
3. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavits Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard authorized representative for the complainant and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
5. It is evident that the complainant purchased a Mobile make of HTC, Model No. N Desire 816G, bearing IMEI No.355702065147185 for a sum of Rs.19,000/- from Op No.4 vide invoice No.321 (Annexure C-1) dated 18.03.2015. From the very same day, the mobile was not working properly. The complainant submitted his mobile phone to Op No.5 who returned the mobile after repair. But after one week, the mobile again started giving problems in hanging, voice and the mobile got automatically off. Sometimes battery did not charge. On 04.08.2015, the complainant approached the OP No.5 who received the mobile vide job No.IXC011-0004012 (Annexure C-2) dated 04.08.2015 with remarks “out going voice problem (min not working)”. The Op No.5 returned the mobile after repair after 23 days. But thereafter, the complainant found that the problem was still there. Thereafter, the complainant again visited the service center i.e. OP No.5 but of no use. The complainant contacted the customer care many times but no response was received. The complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavit (Annexure C-A).
6. Moreover, the Ops did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Ops despite notices show that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the same are accepted as correct and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops is proved.
7. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Ops are jointly and severely directed as under:-

(i)      To refund the price of the mobile i.e. Rs.19,000/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of purchase of mobile.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

18.12.2015       S.P.ATTRI          ANITA KAPOOR        DHARAM PAL

                         MEMBER           MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    

                                 

                                                         S.P.ATTRI

                                                          MEMBER