Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/24/2010

Ram KUmar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Electro Pacific - Opp.Party(s)

05 Mar 2010

ORDER


CHANDIGARH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - I Plot No 5- B, Sector 19 B, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh - 160 019
CONSUMER CASE NO. 24 of 2010
1. Ram KUmarson of Sh. Gurmeet Singh, R/o VPO Khijrabad Tehsil Kharar Distt. Mohali ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. M/s Electro PacificSCO 1024,Sector-22/B, ( Opp. Bus Stand) Chandigarh.2. M/s Cyber Electronics service Centre of Fly PhoneSCO 170 1st Floor SEctor-38/C Chandigarh ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 05 Mar 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

                       

Consumer Complaint No

:

24 of 2010

Date of Institution

:

12.01.2010

Date of Decision   

:

05.03.2010

 

Ram Kumar son of Sh. Gurmeet Singh r/o VPO Khijrabad, Tehsil Kharar, Distt. Mohali.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.      M/s Electro Pacific, SCO 1024, Sector 22-B (Opp. Bus Stand), Chandigarh.

2.      M/s Cyber Electronics, Service Centre of Fly Phone, SCO 170, 1st Floor, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.

                                  ..…Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

              SH. RAJINDER SINGH GILL  MEMBER

 

Argued by: Complainant in person

OPs ex-parte

                    

PER DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL, MEMBER

             Succinctly put, on 15.6.2009 the complainant purchased a Fly make mobile phone from OP-1 for Rs.4056/- having one year guarantee.  The set worked properly for 5 months but thereafter started giving problems.  He visited OP-1, who advised him to visit service center i.e. OP-2.  When he visited OP-2 he was asked to leave the set and it was told that it would take 15 days.  When he visited after 15 days he was asked to wait for 3-4 days as the set could not be set right and the same story was repeated when he again visited the OP-2 after one week and even thereafter. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             OP-1 did not appear despite due service, hence it was proceeded against exparte.

3.             Initially Shri Ranyodh Singh, owner of OP-2 appeared and the case was fixed for filing reply and evidence but subsequently neither the reply and evidence was filed nor anybody appeared on its behalf, hence OP-2 was proceeded against exparte.

4.             Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

5.             We have heard the complainant in person and have also perused the record. 

6.             Needless to mention that the said mobile phone was purchased on 15.06.2009 which became defective after five months of its purchase. During that period the mobile phone was under warranty. Annexure C-3 is the job sheet which shows that on 2.11.09 the said mobile was taken to OP-2(the service centre of OP-1) for repair. The warranty certificate now marked Annexure C-2 shows that it was under warranty for the period of one year from the date of its purchase. It is the contention of the complainant that he visited the OPs several times to get the said mobile set repaired but the OPs failed to do so and rather thrust this unwanted litigation on the complainant. Moreover the OPs have not controverted any of the contentions of the complainant because nobody appeared on behalf of them after service and were proceeded against exparte.  It shows that the OPs have nothing to say against the claim made by the complainant and was deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant.   

7.             In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. As the mobile in question was under warranty, we direct OP-1 to get the defective mobile phone repaired from OP-2 and return it to the complainant after effecting the necessary repairs, making it fully functional upto the satisfaction of the complainant, without charging anything. The OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.1100/- towards the mental agony suffered by him alongwith Rs.550/- as costs of litigation.  In case the mobile is found to be non repairable, in that eventuality, OP-1 will get it replaced from the manufacturer with same model and configurations with fresh warranty.  This order shall be complied within 30 days form the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the OPs would be liable to pay the aforesaid amount i.e. Rs.1100+550= Rs1,650/- alongwith penal interest @12% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e.12.01.2010, till its realization.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.

 

 

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sd/-

05.03.2010

5th Mar.,.2010

[Rajinder Singh Gill]

[Dr.(Mrs) Madhu Behl]

[Jagroop Singh Mahal]

rg

Member

Member

           President


RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBERHONABLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT DR. MADHU BEHL, MEMBER