ORDER
Complaint under Sec.12 of the CPA 1986 as amended upto date
Ms. Nipur Chandna, Member
Complainant purchased a mobile H.T.C. Desire – C.E.M.T. no. 352276059 086744 dated 20.9.2012 vide Invoice No. 126422 for a sum of Rs.12,739/- from OP .
It is alleged by the complainant that while purchasing the aforesaid mobile OP advised to take a scheme for an extra one year warranty by paying Rs.199/- extra and accordingly he consented for the scheme and paid to OP No. 1 a sum of Rs.12,540/- i.e. cost of mobile and a sum of Rs.199/- as one year extra warranty.
It is alleged by the complainant that in the month of June 2014 the aforesaid mobile started giving problem, and as such he visited the shop of the OP and asked him to repair the mobile phone. Instead the OP threatened the complainant with dire consequences and pushed him out of his store.
It is further alleged by the complainant that he sent letter dated 23.8.2014 to the OP through his brother, but no reply was given by the OP . The complainant also sent reminder cum legal notice dated 11.9.,2014 to the OP through his brother, but all in vain.
The complainant therefore, approached this Forum for the redressal of his grievance.
Notices of the complaint were sent to the OP through Regd. AD post on 13.11.2014 and 12.1.2015 Sh. Sunil Kumar Tripathi, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP on 12.3.2015 and collected the copy of complaint. The counsel for the OP put in his presence on 13.5.2015 but did not file W.S. and chose not to contest the matter thereafter.
Since none appeared on behalf of OP , it was ordered to be proceeded with exparte.
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 the copy of invoice dated 20.9.2012, copy of letter dated 28.8.2014, He has also placed on record the copy of the reminder cum legal notice dated 11.9.2014 alongwith the postal receipt, which he had sent to the OP . The OP had failed to comply or refute the allegations levelled in the notice.
In number of cases courts have held that where serious allegation are made against a noticee in a notice and the allegations are not refuted and the notice is simply ignored, a presumption may be drawn that the allegation made in the notice are true ( See Kalu Ram V/s Sita
Ram 1980 RLR (Note 44) and Metro Polis Travels vs Sumit Kalra & Another 98
(2002) DLT 573 (DB).
The present case is one where a presumption needs to be drawn in favour of the complainant. Even otherwise, there is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit filed on record by the complainant.
From the un-rebutted testimony of the complaint as well as the documents placed on record, we are convinced that the story put forth by the complainant is true.
The bare persual of Invoice dated 20.9.2012 makes it clear that the OP had charged a sum of Rs.199/- from the complainant and provided him with one year extended warranty. The denial to repair during the period of extended warranty by the OP amounts to deficiency in service.
We, therefore, hold OP guilty of deficiency in service and direct it as under: -
- To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.199/- alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. for the date of purchase i.e. 20.9.2012 till payment.
- To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.7500/- for pain and mental agony suffered by him.
- To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2500/- as a cost of litigation.
The OP 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 OP fails 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.....................
