BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.72/15.
Date of instt.: 21.04.2015.
Date of Decision: 21.07.2015.
Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Mewa Singh, R/o Khurana Road, Bye Pass, Kaithal, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant. Versus
1. M/s. Kaithal Health Care Centre, Show Room No.1, Koel Complex, Kaithal-136027 through its prop. partner/owner.
2. Sony India Ltd., A-31 Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estaste Mathura Road, New Delhi.
3. Sony Care, Shop No.135, Sector-17, Kurukshetra.
..………OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Complainant in person.
OPs already exparte.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a mobile Sony Aperia M.Duel, Model C-2004 bearing IMEI No.352709063680227 from the Op No.1 for sum of Rs.11,500/-vide bill No.3060 dt. 25.08.2014. It is alleged that since the date of purchase of said mobile, the same was spoiled and the mobile was not working properly and it started created problems of not making the movie and speaker has also dead and now the said mobile has ceased to function and dead. It is further alleged that despite several visits and requests, the Ops failed to remove the defects and the Ops are avoiding to replace the said mobile. This way, the Ops are deficient in service and adopting unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the Ops did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 05.06.2015.
3. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 and C2 and closed evidence on 20.07.2015.
4. We have heard the complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased a mobile Sony Xperia Dual, Model C-2004 bearing IMEI No.352709063680227 from the Op No.1 for sum of Rs.11,500/-vide bill No.3060 dt. 25.08.2014. The complainant contends that since the date of purchase of said mobile, the same was spoiled and the mobile was not working properly and it started created problems of not making the movie and speaker has also dead and now the said mobile has ceased to function and dead. The complainant approached the Ops several times for its repair/replacement but the Ops did not do so. The complainant has also tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill, Ex.C1 and copy of I.D. Ex.C2. Whereas, on the other hand, the Ops did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte. So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged. So, we are of the considered view that the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
6. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint exparte and direct the Ops to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant vide bill No.3060 dt. 25.08.2014. However, it is made clear that if the said mobile as purchased by the complainant, is not available with the Ops, then the Ops shall refund Rs.11,500/- as the cost of mobile to the complainant. The Ops are also burdened with cost of Rs.1100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges to the complainant. All the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of order till its realization, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. on the amount of Rs.11,500/- from the date of commencement of this order till its realization. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.21.07.2015.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
