DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.58 of 22-02-2018

Decided on 07-06-2018

Harjinder Singh aged about 20 year S/o Balwinder Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh R/o House No.520, Village Kot Bakhtu, District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.M/s HD Mobile, Shop No.17/1, SSD Sabha Market, Bathinda, through its Proprietor.

2.TNS Mobile India Private Ltd., Flat No.820-A, 9^th Floor, Naurang House 21, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001, through its Care Manager/M.D/Chairman.

3.M/s Rising Stars Mobile India Private Limited, Plot No.M-28, Sipcot Industrial Park, Phase II, Hi tech SEZ, DTA Area, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanheepuram-602106, Tamil Nadu (India), through its Managing Director/Chairman.

4.M/s Hind Tel Communication, Bibi Wala Road Near Krishna Continental Hotel, Bathinda. (Deleted)

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the complainant: Sh.V.P.S Khurmi, Advocate.

Opposite party Nos.1 to 3: Ex-parte.

Opposite party No.4: Deleted.

ORDER

Jarnail Singh, Member

1. The complainant Harjinder Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties M/s HD Mobile and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one mobile handset bearing IMEI No.357347089188571 for Rs.1250/- vide invoice dated 30.1.2018 from opposite party No.1.

3. It is alleged that it was specifically mentioned on the invoice that Nokia 105 is dual Sim. After purchase of the mobile handset, the complainant went to his house and opened the box of mobile handset and found that there was single Sim mobile handset and it was not dual Sim. As such, he approached opposite party No.1 and requested it to change the mobile handset with dual Sim or refund its price amount, but to no effect.

4. It is further alleged that due to non replacement of the mobile handset, the complainant has suffered from mental tension, botheration, agony, harassment and financial loss.

   On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. By this complaint, he has prayed for directions to opposite parties to replace the mobile handset with dual Sim in addition to compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

5. In view of statement suffered by learned counsel for complainant, name of opposite party No.4 was deleted from the array of opposite parties.

6. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 to 3. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them.

7. Complainant was asked to produce evidence.

8. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavits dated 22.2.2018 and 4.6.2018, (Ex.C1 and Ex.C11); copy of legal notice, (Ex.C2); postal receipts, (Ex.C3 and Ex.C4); photocopies of card box of mobile handset, (Ex.C5 to Ex.C7); photocopies of photographs, (Ex.C8 and Ex.C9); photocopy of invoice, (Ex.C10) and closed the evidence.

9. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the file carefully.

10. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above.

11. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

12. The complainant has purchased one mobile handset Nokia 105 Dual Sim for Rs.1250/- vide invoice dated 30.1.2018, (Ex.C10). As per complainant, it was mentioned in the invoice that the mobile handset is dual Sim, but when he opened the box, he found that it was a single Sim mobile handset. Due to this, he has suffered from mental tension, botheration and harassment etc. Opposite party Nos.1 to 3 have not come forward to corroborate this fact and contest the complaint of the complainant. The evidence of the complainant is un-rebutted and un-challenged. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence.

13. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to replace the mobile handset with dual Sim mobile handset on receiving the mobile handset in question with its all accessories from the complainant.

14. The compliance of this order be made jointly and severally by opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

15. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

16. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    07-06-2018

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member