Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/471/2014

Rohit S/o Jai Pal Walia - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Duggal Mobile Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Kushal Vig

26 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No.471 of 2014.

                                                                                    Date of institution:12.11.2014.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 26.11.2015.

Sh. Rohit  aged about 28 years son of Jai Pal Walia, R/o Village Khizrabad, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar.    

                                                                                                           …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. M/s Duggal Mobile Center, # 4, Mela Singh Chowk, near Yes Bank, Yamuna Nagar, through its Proprietor.    
2. M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. A-31, Mohan Corporative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 through its Manager Director.   
3. Sony Service Centre, behind BSNL Exchange, Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    …opposite parties.

 

Before:              SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Kushal Vig. Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               OPs already ex-parte. 

                

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Mr. Rohit has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 on the allegation that he had purchased one mobile set Sony Model C2104 colour black, bearing EMI No. 356605053417875 vide Bill No. 15433 dated 28.3.2014 for a sum of Rs. 15,500/- from Op No.1 who is dealer of OP No.2 manufacturer and OP No.3 is service centre of OP No.2. At the time of purchasing the abovesaid mobile set in question OP No.1 assured the complainant that aforesaid mobile set is of good quality. The mobile set in question was not working properly from the very beginning and was having defect of hanging and Apps and he contacted with OP No.1, who advised him to contact with OP No.3 i.e. service centre of OP No.2 manufacturing company. The complainant contacted with OP No.3 who told that the mother board of the mobile in question is damaged and asked to visit again after few days. On 14.7.2014, the complainant again visited the OP No.3 but he did not give any satisfactory response to the complainant and return the mobile set with a service job card No. W114071405568 and did not pay any heed in the matter. A legal notice was also served on 19.8.2014 but they did not bother to reply the same. Since then the complainant is running from pillar to post and lastly prayed for replacement of the defective mobile phone or to pay the amount received as price from the complainant and further to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and to pay Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses.  

2.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 failed to appear despite service, hence, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 6.1.2015. However, Sh. Salim ASC, Mobile Engineer, appeared on behalf of OPs No.2 & 3 but later on failed to appear and they were also proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 25.2.2015.

3.                     To prove his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Bill of Mobile as Annexure C-1, Job sheet as Annexure C-2, Copy of legal notice dated 19.8.2014 as Annexure C-3, Postal receipts as Annexure C-4 to C-6, Acknowledgement as Annexure C-7 & C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

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

5.                     It is not disputed that the complainant has purchase the mobile set Sony Model C2104 colour black, bearing EMI No. 356605053417875 vide Bill No. 15433 dated 28.3.2014 for a sum of Rs. 15,500/- from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.3  which is evident from the bill Annexure C-1. From the perusal of job sheet Annexure C-2 it is clear that the mobile set was having some problems in Apps. Learned counsel for the complainant hotly argued that mobile set in question was having problem in mother board also which cannot be repaired. However, the arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant is not wholly tenable as the complainant failed to file any expert/mechanic report showing manufacturing defect in the mother board or the mobile set in question. However, the version of the complainant is fully supported by his affidavit Annexure CW/A and respondents/Ops did not bother to contest the complaint and remained ex-parte. Further it is evident from the job card that the APPS problem has been pointed out by the complainant in the month of July 2014 whereas the mobile set in question was purchased by the complainant on 28.3.2014 i.e. within a period of 3-4 months during the currency of period of warranty. It is not disputed that the complainant has invested his money for purchasing a mobile set with a view that he will enjoy but due to some problem he might have suffered some hardship in the hands of OPs. Hence, we have no option except to accept the version of the complainant that mobile set in question was having some problem.  

 

6.                     In the above noted circumstances, we are of the considered view that there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.2 & 3 for not providing proper services to the complainant. Hence, the complainant is entitled for relief.

7.                     Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and he is entitled for relief qua repair of his mobile set. Hence, we direct the OPs No.2 & 3 to repair the mobile phone of complainant and set it in proper working order free of costs and further to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court: 26.11.2015.                   

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.