Haryana

StateCommission

A/889/2016

RAM ROSHNI - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOBILE SHOPEE - Opp.Party(s)

MUNISH BEHL

26 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.           889 of 2016

                                                Date of Institution:       27.09.2016

                                                Date of Decision:         26.10.2016

 

Ram Roshni wife of Ishwar Singh, resident of House No.886/24, Shiv Nagar, Sonepat.

                             Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

1.      M/s Mobile Shoppe, Shop No.43-44, Opposite Durga Cable, Geet Bhawan Chowk, Sonepat through its Proprietor Lovkesh Batra (Luckey).

 

2.      Micromax Mobile Company, Micromax House, 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase V, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Director.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                                                         

Present:              Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate for the appellant.

           

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated April 05^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short, ‘District Forum’).  Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“…….In our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if the directions are given to the respondents to refund the amount after some deduction under depreciation head.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.14,500/- to the complainant after deducting 25% from this amount as depreciation amount...”  

         

2.      On December 05^th, 2014 Ram Roshni-complainant purchased mobile phone- Micromax A300 make from M/s Mobile Shoppe, Sonepat-opposite party No.1 for Rs.14,500/-.  The mobile phone developed some defects.  The complainant informed the opposite parties.  On August 05^th, 2015, the complainant handed over her mobile phone to the service centre for its repair.  Neither the service centre returned the mobile phone nor repaired the same.  Hence, she filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum. 

3.      The complaint was accepted by the District Forum and issued direction to the opposite parties as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this order.

4.      Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant has come up in appeal for enhancement of compensation.

5.      The District Forum vide impugned order directed to the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile phone, that is, Rs.14,500/- after deducting 25% depreciation to the complainant. This being so, the complainant has been adequately compensated and as such, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

6.      The appeal is therefore dismissed.

 

 

Announced 26.10.2016

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

B.M. Bedi Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

UK