BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.265 of 2017
Date of Instt. 02.08.2017
Date of Decision: 20.02.2018
Ranjit S/o Amarjit R/o H. No.B-5/72, Sairpur Kalan, (Bada Saipur), Near Dada Colony, Industrial Area, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Dukaan Resources Pvt. Ltd., GGN-SDRNA, Village Sadhrana, Gurgaon through its Director/Authorized representative.
Kunal Kumar, Manager, Swastik Computer, Shop No.1, 2nd Floor, Monica Tower, Milap Chowk, Jalandhar.
..….…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Sh. Shivji Lal, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
OP No.1 and 2 exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he was allured by an advertisement published by OP No.1 and 2 in respect of Mobile MeiZu M3S (32 GB). The complainant purchased the said mobile set from the OP No.1, vide Invoice No.SF1D30/16-17/1004 dated 28.10.2016 of MeiZu M3S (32 GB) item code GN759218, order No.16377222121, Sub Order No.20437313610, IMEI No.861417036241382 for Rs.9299/-. OP No.2 is an authorized service provider of OP No.1. Soon after its purchase, the said mobile set developed display problem and the said mobile set was deposited with OP No.1 on 06.03.2017 and after repair, the set was delivered to the complainant by OP No.2 on 02.04.2017. On the next date i.e. 03.04.2017, the said mobile set again caused same problem and the set was again deposited with the OP No.2 and after repair, it was delivered to the complainant on 06.05.2017. After working proper few days, the said mobile set was again developed the same defect and ultimately, the same was deposited with OP No.2 on 15.06.2017. Till that date, the said defective mobile set is lying with the OP No.2 unattended despite the repeated visits and requests of the complainant. Since purchase, the said mobile set is not functioning properly and has been deposited and repaired time and again, meaning thereby that the said set is defective one and not fit for use. The complainant visited the office of OP No.2, but he did not listen the request of the complainant, then the complainant sent a legal notice on 26.06.2017 through Advocate, but the reply of this legal notice was not given by the OP. This act of the OP is absolutely unhealthy and unreasonable.
2. That after sending the representation, personal visit even legal notice, the OP failed to rectify the defect as well as did not reply the notice and ultimately, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the defective mobile set with new one or in alternative to refund the payment of mobile set and further, OPs be directed to pay compensation for harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and be also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service, both the OPs did not appear and ultimately, both the OPs were proceeded against exparte
4. In order to prove his exparte claim, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-2 and closed the exparte evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. In nutshell, the case set up by the complainant is that he purchased a mobile set from the OP No.1, after making a payment of Rs.9299/-, vide Invoice Ex.C-1, but after purchasing the said mobile, the complainant noticed that there is a display problem in the said mobile set and accordingly, the complainant approached to the OP for repairing the mobile on 06.03.2017 and after repair, it was returned to the complainant on 02.04.2017, but despite repairing the said mobile set, its defect was not cured and ultimately, the complainant again approached to the OP and disclosed that the same problem is still in existence and accordingly, the mobile set was again deposited and it was delivered to the complainant on 06.05.2017. Thereafter, the complainant noticed that the problem is still subsisting and then complainant deposited the mobile with OP No.2 on 15.06.2017, but the same is lying with the OP No.2 unattended despite the repeated requests of the complainant and then complainant gave a legal notice, but the OPs did not bother, which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OP and for that the complainant is entitled for the replacement of the mobile as well as compensation and litigation expenses.
7. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the complainant and find that the complainant has established on the file by bringing his own affidavit Ex.CA that he purchased the mobile phone after making a payment of Rs.9299/-, vide Invoice Ex.C-1 and thereafter, display problem was developed in the said mobile set and accordingly, the complainant deposited the same twicely with the OP and no Job Card was issued to the complainant, but the problem was still in subsisting and ultimately, the complainant deposited the mobile set on 15.06.2017 third time with the OP and admittedly the same is still lying with the OPs, which is established from the Job Sheet dated 15.06.2017 Ex.C-2, it is clearly established on the file that the mobile set was deposited with the OP thricely and the defect in the mobile set has not been cured, which shows that there is a manufacturing defect in the mobile set and due to that reason, the same is not returned to the complainant since from 15.06.2017 and as such, the complainant is entitled for replacement of the said mobile set as well as entitled for compensation and litigation expenses.
8. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is exparte partly accepted and OPs are directed to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with new one and delivered the same to the complainant and further OPs are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant for mental harassment and also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order, failing which the OPs will further liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum upon the aforesaid amount of Rs.7000/- from the date of filing complaint, till realization. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
20.02.2018 Member President
