Haryana

Sonipat

CC/65/2016

Sanjeev Kaushik S/o Hari Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s I.N.S. Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

27 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.       

 

                                Complaint No.65 of 2016

                                Instituted on:08.03.2016                                             Date of order:27.04.2016

 

Sanjeev Kaushik son of Hari Parkash Kaushik r/o New Mahavir Colony, Opp. Chandan Petrol Pump near Vinayak Garden, Shani Mandir road, Sonepat.

 

..Complainant

 

                            Versus

 

1.M/s INS Telecom Authorized Service Centre, GSM and CDMA Mobile Phones, Gurudwara road, near Chhoti Masjid Sonepat.

2.M/s Gionee Company, Gionee Syntech Technology Pvt. Ltd., E-9, Block No.B-1 Ground Floor, Mohan Co-op. Industrial Estate Mathura rod, New Delhi.

 

..Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

           Respondent no.1 and 2 ex-parte on 18.4.2016.

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

         

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that on 11.1.2016 he has purchased mobile phone of Gionee Company worth Rs.13000/- from Ankur Mobile Shop, Sonepat.  On 16.2.2016, the said mobile phone became faulty and on 17.2.2016 he deposited the same with respondent no.1 and when after two days, the complainant went to respondent no.1 for collecting his phone, then it was disclosed that there is fault in the plate of the mobile.  On 2.3.2016 the complainant went to respondent no.1 for collecting his mobile.  When the mobile set was switched ‘On’, then the complainant saw that there were photos of some other persons.  The complaint was made to respondent no.1 in   this regard, who told that the IMEI number immediately got changed on the replacement of the plate and this wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        Notice to the respondent no.1 was issued through registered post and notice to respondent no.2 was issued through process server of this Forum. But none has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.1 and 2 and due to this, the respondents no.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.04.2016.

3.        We have heard the ex-parte submissions of the complainant and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        The complainant’s stand is that he has purchased the mobile set of Gionee Company worth Rs.13000/- from Ankur Mobile Shop, Sonepat. On 16.2.2016, the said mobile phone became faulty and on 17.2.2016 he deposited the same with respondent no.1 and when after two days, the complainant went to respondent no.1 for collecting his phone, then it was disclosed that there is fault in the plate of the mobile.  On 2.3.2016 the complainant went to respondent no.1 for collecting his mobile.  When the mobile set was switched ‘On’, then the complainant saw that there were photos of some other persons.  The complainant was made to respondent no.1 in this regard, who told that the IMEI number immediately got changed on the replacement of the plate and this wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment.

          In the present case, opportunity was given to the respondent no.1 and 2 to come present before this Forum and to defend the case.  But instead of doing so, the respondents no.1 and 2 have chosen to proceed ex-parte, meaning thereby, to some extent they have admitted the grievances of the complainant.

         In the present case, the complainant has purchased the mobile in question on 11.1.2016 and he has filed the present complaint before this Forum on 8.3.2016 i.e. within two months. Since the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the respondents are directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.1000/- only for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to provide the new mobile phone to the complainant worth Rs.14000/-  (Rs.fourteen thousand i.e. Rs.13000/- as cost of mobile and Rs.1000/- as compensation). 

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands ex-parte allowed and the respondents are directed to make the compliance of this order within one month from the date of passing of this order.  It is also directed that if the mobile in question is in possession of the complainant, then he will return the same alongwith all its accessories to the respondents.

         Certified copy of this order be provided to the complainant free of costs and the same be also sent to the respondents for information and its strict compliance.

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

(Prabha Wati)                        (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF                             DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:27.04.2016