DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Complaint Case No:830 of 2010]

                                                          Date of Institution : 31.12.2010

                                                            Date of Decision   : 08.04.2011

Sh. Ramesh Kumar son of Sh. Sat Pal resident of H.No.2011, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh.

                                                                   ---Complainant.

V E R S U S

M/s Harish Communication, S.C.O No.62-63, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh-100017.

---Opposite Party.

BEFORE:   SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA        PRESIDENT

                SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI     MEMBER

                SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA            MEMBER

Argued By:Sh. Ramesh Kumar, complainant in person.

                   OP already exparte.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

                   Sh. Ramesh Kumar has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed  to :-

i)                   To replace the defective cell phone with new one.

ii)                 To pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and financial loss.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 6.12.2010, he purchased a Beetal-A SWAP-GP 405 mobile set from the OP. The said mobile phone went out of order on 20.12.2010 i.e. within 15 days from the date of its purchase. The defective mobile set was handed over to the authorised service centre of OP i.e. Accel Frontline Services Ltd, SCO No.310, 2^nd Floor, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh for necessary repairs vide copy of the Delivery challan annexed with the complaint. It is alleged that it was told by the OP that the mobile set could be replaced within seven days whereas the warranty has been given up to 5.12.2011. The grouse of the complainant is that the defective mobile is non repairable and he has been harassed due to the act of OP in not replacing the same, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                OP was duly served but OP refused to accept the summons. As refusal was a good service, therefore, OP was ordered to be proceeded against vide order dated 14.03.2011.

4.                We have heard the complainant in person and perused the record very carefully.

5.                The averments made in the complaint as reproduced above of the order stands corroborated from the affidavit of the complainant as well as from documents annexed with the complaint. From the copy of Retail Invoice dated 6.12.2010, it is proved that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question for Rs.2,500/- from OP. The next two documents i.e. Customer Acknowledgement and Delivery Challan show that mobile set was taken to the authorised service centre i.e. Accel Frontline Service limited for necessary repairs on two dates and the problems with the mobile set were relating to SIM not inserting, HW Part Defective (Function) and Display Problem-Line in display. The mobile set in question is covered under warranty as is mentioned in the Retail Invoice dated 6.12.2010.  The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that the mobile set was not working properly and the same was not replaced by OP despite his repeated requests and visits. The complainant has also furnished an affidavit dated 1.4.2011 before this Forum wherein he has categorically deposed that he gave the mobile set to the OP on 21.12.2010, who promised him to repair the same within three days but they failed to do so and the complainant was left with no option but to approach this Forum by way of present complaint. Otherwise also, the averments made in the complaint have gone un-rebutted and un-controverted as nobody appeared on behalf of the OP despite due service to deny the same. In our considered view, non-replacing of the defective mobile set amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP.

6.                In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with a new sealed and packed mobile set of same model and specification with fresh warranty of one year from the date of delivery.  OP is also directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.1,000/- as costs of litigation.

7.                This order be complied with by OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation along with penal interest @18% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e.31.12.2010 till its realization besides costs of litigation.

8.                Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

8^th April 2011.

Sd/-

 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Ad/-

C.C.No.830 of   2010

Argued By:Sh. Ramesh Kumar, complainant in person.

                   OP already exparte.

                                                          ---

                   As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned.

Announced.

08.04.2011          Member              President             Member