Haryana

Karnal

CC/91/2016

Yoginder Singh S/o Mehar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Audio Video Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Dalbir Singh

09 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                              Complaint No.91 of 2016

                                                             Date of instt.:25.03.2016

                                                               Date of decision 09.02.2017

 

Yoginder Singh son of Mehar Singh, resident of village Sagga tehsil Nilokheri District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. M/s Audio Video Electronics, 6/10-11, opposite post office Ram Nagar, Karnal through its proprietor.

2. HTC Care Service Centre New Mask Communication shop no.152 1^st floor Mugal Canal Road, Karnal through its authorized person.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri Sandeep Rana Advocate for complainant.

                    Opposite parties exparte.

                    

                    

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased a mobile hand set from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.17,000/-, vide bill dated 04.05.2015, with a warranty of one year. The opposite party no.2 was authorized service centre of the company, since very beginning, the mobile set,  created problems of net work and speaker receiver. He approached the opposite party no.1, who sent him to opposite party no.2 i.e. service centre of the company. He approached the opposite parties so many times for repair of the mobile set, but they  paid no any heed to his requests. At last mobile set stopped to work and in that regard he approached the opposite party no.2 on 14.1.2016 and requested to remove the fault or to replace his mobile set with new one. The opposite party no.2 assured him that the problems would be removed, therefore, he deposited the mobile set, vide job sheet dated 14.1.2016. Opposite party no.2 could not rectify the defect.  Ultimately, the mobile set was returned by saying that the same was not repairable and was having some manufacturing defect. Such acts on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service on their part, which caused him mental agony, harassment and financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties. None put into appearance on behalf of opposite parties despite service, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated against them, vide order dated 4.7.2016.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex. CW1A and documents Ex.C1 to C4 have been tendered.

4                 We have heard the complainant and have also gone through the documents placed on file carefully.

5.                The complainant purchased mobile hand set HTC 626-G+(Bine)   bearing IMEI No.358030060822 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.17000/-, vide bill dated 04.05.2015, with a warranty of one year.  As per allegations of the complainant from the very beginning the mobile was not working properly and was having problems of net work and speaker receiver, so he reported the matter to opposite party no.2, the authorized service centre of the company, who kept the hand set for rectification of defects, but did not rectify the defects and returned the mobile. The complainant has also filed his affidavit in support of his allegations. The copy of the job sheet Ex.C2 clearly shows that the mobile set was having problems during warranty period. Thus, evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. It was the duty of the opposite parties either to rectify the defects or in case the defects were not repairable then replace the mobile set of the complainant. Hence, it is well proved that the service of the opposite parties was deficient.

6.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to repair the mobile set in question of the complainant and if the defects are not repairable then replace the same with new one of the same value. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2200/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 9.2.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member