DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 1462/2015
Date of Institution : 23.11.2015
Date of Decision : 06.04.2016
Tushar Goyal aged 20 years son of Sh. Rakesh Kumar resident of House No. BX/95, Ahata Narain Singh, K.C. Road, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. A.K. Watch Co. Sadar Bazaar, Barnala through its Proprietor/ Partner.
2. T.V.S. Electronics Limited, South Phase-7A, Second Floor, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chenai-600032.
3. U.B. Insurance Associates C/o Apps Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 6th Floor, C-Wing, Oberoi Garden Estate, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Rajan Chaudhary counsel for the complainant
Opposite parties exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Shri Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Tushar Goyal (hereinafter referred as complainant) has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short as Act) against A.K. Watch Co. and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant purchased the mobile handset HTC Desire 860G model from the opposite party No. 1 for Rs. 16,550/- vide invoice No. 4896 dated 11.12.2014. The said mobile was manufactured by the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 1 assured the complainant that the said mobile was very good and there was no complaint from any person. The opposite party No. 1 has also provided warranty for one year. The opposite party No. 1 also advised the complainant to get the mobile insured against theft, physical damage and water damage and accordingly the mobile was got insured with the opposite party No. 3.
3. It is alleged that the said mobile was not working properly and was sent to the service centre of opposite party No. 2 and it was repaired and an amount of Rs. 615/- was charged. However, the mobile did not function properly and therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint on 13.8.2015 but the opposite parties have not bothered to attend the complaint. It is further alleged that the mobile is suffering from the defects of touch screen, processor is slow and hang problem. It is also alleged that the complainant approached the opposite parties many a times but the opposite parties did not repair or replace the same. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs directing the opposite parties to.-
1) To refund Rs. 16,550/- as cost of the mobile hand set.
2) To pay Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental tension, agony and harassment.
3) To pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs of proceedings.
4) To pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 13.8.2015.
4. Upon notice of this complaint Rohit Goyal proprietor of opposite party No. 1 appeared and Sh. Gurdeep Singh appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 at the initial stage. However, on 29.2.2016 they did not appear and therefore, they were proceeded against exparte. Opposite party No. 3 did not appear despite service so the opposite party No. 3 was also proceeded against exparte.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through all the record on the file carefully.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the mobile set in question has the following defects.-
a) Touch Screen is not working properly.
b) Processor is slow.
c) Hand problem.
8. To prove this the complainant has placed on record his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1, wherein he has reiterated his case as mentioned in the complaint. Perusal of the invoice Ex.C-2 shows that the complainant has purchased the same on 11.12.2014 from A.K. Watch Company opposite party No. 1 for Rs. 16,550/-.
9. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties have not been redressing his grievance despite the visiting of the complainant many times to the opposite parties. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the opposite parties have redressed the grievance of the complainant. It is also worth mentioning here that the complainant has not placed on record any expert report/technical report to show that the mobile set was having a technical defect and beyond repairs. Even, there is no plea regarding technical defect in the complaint. The complaint is within limitation as it is stated that the warranty is for one year. The evidence produced by the complainant is un-rebutted and therefore, presumption of truth lies to the un-rebutted evidence. As there is no technical defect has been pleaded or proved, therefore, it is a fit case where the relief of repair can be given to the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint is accepted to the extent that the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are directed to remove the defects from the mobile hand set of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint qua touch screen is not working properly, processor is slow and hang problem. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
6th Day of April 2016
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
