Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/528/2014

Sunder Lal S/o Bhar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bhatia Attachi Centre And General Store - Opp.Party(s)

Harish Kumar

04 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No.  528 of 2014.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 22.12.2014.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 4.12.2015.

 

Sh. Sunder Pal aged about 28 years son of Sh. Bhar Singh, R/o # 44, Village Kutipur, P.O. Bhud Kalan, Tehsil Chhachrauli, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                                                                                              …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1.  M/s Bhatia Attachi Centre & General Store, Authorized Distributor of XOLO Mobiles, # 1, Geeta Bhawan Market, Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor/Partner. 

2. XOLO Service Centre, M/s Grover Computers & Electronics, SC-103, Shivaji Park, Nehru Park, Yamuna Nagar, through its Manager/Proprietor.                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                                                                …Opposite parties.

                        Complaint under section 12 of

                        Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Parveen Goel, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              OPs already ex-parte.

             

             

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Sunder Pal has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to refund the bill amount of defective mobile alongwith interest and further to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as financial loss suffered by him. 

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant purchased one XOLO A-800 mobile bearing IEMI No. 9112505009107331 on 1.9.2013 from M/s Bhatia Attachi Centre, Geeta Bhawn Market, Yamuna Nagar  who is authorized dealer of the manufacturing company for an amount of Rs. 9450/-  vide cash Bill No. 15472 dated 1.9.2013( Annexure C-1). It has been further alleged that since the very beginning the mobile set has not working properly and the touch screen of the abovesaid mobile was not in working order. The complainant approached to OP No.2 and made a complaint regarding this. After investigation, the OP No.2 stated that there is defect in touch screen and stated that they have to sent the same to the manufacturer unit for replacement of touch and it will take time more than one month. Upon this the complainant deposited the mobile set for replacement of touch screen with the OP No.2 and OP No.2 issued work order No. 310000650354 dated 9.8.2014 (Annexure C-2) to the complainant.  Further stated that more than six months have been lapsed and the complainant visited regularly to OP No.2 to take his mobile set but OP No.2 always linger on the matter on the pretext that the mobile set has been misplaced in transit. As such, there is a gross negligence and deficiency in service on the party of OP No.2 and Op No.1 played unfair restrictive trade practice due to which the complainant is suffering mental agony and harassment. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 refused to receive the summon whereas OP No.3 was duly served but one appeared on behalf of OPs, hence, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 15.6.2015.

 4.                    To prove his case counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Bill dated 1.9.2013 as Annexure C-1, Job sheet dated 9.8.2014 as Anenxure C-2, Copy of legal notice dated 9.10.2014 as Anenxure C-3, Postal receipts as Annexure C-4 & C-5, Acknowledgement as Annexure C-6 and Registered AD as Annexure C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

6.                      From the perusal of Annexure C-1,  it is clear that the complainant had purchased mobile set from the OP No.1 on 1.9.2013  by paying a sum of Rs. 9450/-. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that since the very beginning the mobile set was not working properly and touch screen of the said mobile set was not working and in this regard he contacted to OP No.2 who after investigation stated to the complainant that there is defect in touch screen and the set will have to sent to the Manufacturer Unit for touch replacement and it will take time about one month. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant deposited the mobile set with the OP No.2 vide work order dated 9.8.2014 (Annexure C-2) and the same has misplaced by the OP No.2 in transit.  As such it is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for its acceptance.

7.                     After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the documents, it is clear from Annexure C-2 that the mobile set of the complainant became defective in the month of August 2014 and the same was deposited with the OP No.2 within a warranty period of one year and the same has not been returned by the OP No.2 as the complainant has specifically mentioned in para No.4 of his complaint that the mobile set in question has been misplaced from OP No.2 i.e. Service Centre. Finding no other alternative, the complainant sent a legal notice to the respondents on 9.10.2014 but the respondents neither received the notice nor redressed the grievances of the complainant which is admittedly deficiency in service on the part of Ops. As the mobile set of complainant was within warranty period and thus having no alternative the complainant has to file the present complaint before this Forum for the redressal of his grievances. Moreover, the version of the complainant is duly supported by his affidavit which goes unrebutted as opposite parties have failed to defend their case. So, in the interest of justice, it would be suffice to refund the cost of mobile in question to the complainant after deducting 20% amount from the cost of Mobile as depreciation being utilized by complainant for 11 months without any fault.

8                      Hence we direct the respondent No.2 to refund 80% amount of the sale price of the mobile i.e. Rs. 7560/- within 30 days from the preparation of copy of this order failing which the complainant would be entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of default. The complaint is decided accordingly.  Copies of this order be sent to parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced:4.12.2015.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.