BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.         

                                                          Consumer Complaint no.112 of 2014                                                                          

                                                        Date of Institution         :    14.8.2014

                                                          Date of Decision   :    15.12.2016

Kapil Bansal son of Shri Satish Bansal, resident of Mandi Kalanwali, District Sirsa.

                                                                             ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Mobile Care Near Dr. Nandanpuri, Mandi Kalanwali District Sirsa through its Proprietor/ Partner.

2. Karbon Mobile, D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi through its Managing Director.

3. Mobile Care Centre, Shop No.89, 1^st Floor Bishnoi Market, Sirsa.

                                                                       ...…Opposite parties.

                   Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI S.B.LOHIA……………………….PRESIDENT

                 SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.   

Present:       None for complainant.

                   Opposite parties already exparte.

          ORDER

          Case of complainant in brief is that he had purchased a mobile set manufactured by op no.2 from op no.1 on payment of Rs.8500/- vide bill No.201 dated 6.1.2013. Mobile bears IMEI No.911251050497285 and 911251050497293. The grievance of the complainant is that after about three months of purchase of the mobile, the working of mobile became very slow with other defects as detailed in the complaint itself. He contacted to op no.1 who referred him to op no.2 and suggested for repair of the mobile. His mobile is lying useless with op no.2 even despite of repeated rounds and serving of legal notice. Ops took no pain to redress the grievance of the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

2.                All the three opposite parties proceeded against exparte for non appearance.

3.                Today, the case was fixed for exparte evidence of complainant but none is present to represent the complainant despite of repeated calls. This Forum choose the way to decide the complaint on the basis of available record instead of dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution i.e. in default. On perusal of record, there is only a copy of bill and copy of legal notice. Besides it, no supporting evidence is available on the record to prove the defect in the mobile and depositing of the mobile with op no.2. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that complainant has failed to bring home the allegations of complaint against the ops. Resultantly, complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.  File be consigned after necessary compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                    President,

Dated:15.12.2016.                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                                    Member.