BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.705 of 2014
Date of institution: 18.12.2014
Date of Decision: 30.04.2015
Kulwant Singh son of Sadhu Singh resident of village Jangpura, Tehsil and District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
……..Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Kasturi Mega Ventures Private Ltd. Franchise of STAR CJ Net Work India Pvt. Ltd., Khasra No. (47//19/2, 10/1, 11/2/1, 12/2/2, 19/2, 20/1) Village Tej Nagar, Tehsil Farruknagar, Gurgaon, Haryana 123503.
2. M/s. Kasturi Mega Ventures Private Ltd. Regd. Office E-7/88, Lala Lajpat Rai Colony, Arera Colony, Bhopal, 462016 (MP) India.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri A.B. Aggarwal, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite Parties ex-parte.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of following directions to the OPs to:
(a) give him the new mobile with original parts or to compensate him financially.
(b) to pay him compensation for unnecessary harassment and mental tension.
The complainant has pleaded in the complaint that he had purchased Mobile item code 142779 Size None/SKU:001 Item Name DATAWIND Pocket Surfer3, G5 Android Smart Phone (ROI) at a cost of Rs.5,499/-, online on 30.05.2014. The mobile was delivered to him by M/s. Aramex, Zirapur. The OPs had given one year warranty of the mobile which was upto 30.04.2015. However, the mobile phone went out of order in December, 2014 due to some manufacturing defect in it. The complainant immediate made complaints to OP No.1 three times and the complainant was asked by officials of OP NO.1 to contact at No.02241286000 who further gave him another number 01832581330. The complainant contacted at this number and the person there did not give him any satisfactory reply. The complainant is working in Govt. Railway Police, Punjab and he requires the phone for his duty and security of the public interests. Non functioning of the mobile has caused mental torture and harassment to the complainant. The OPs have not responded to the repeated calls of the complainant. Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. After the admission of the complaint, dasti notices were sent to the OPs through the registered post. OP No.1 refused to receive the notice and as per the report retrieved from India post site, the notice was delivered to OP No.2 on 15.01.2015. However, OP No.2 was also served through email. Despite proper and effective service, none appeared on behalf of the OPs and thus were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.01.2015.
3. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1; copies of documents Ex.C-1 and C-2.
4. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Uttrakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled as Consoritum Securities Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Anjana Tyagi, 2013(3) CLT 570 by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Mathura Mahto Mistry Vs. Bindeshwar Jha (Dr.) & another, 2008 (I) CLT 566, the OPs were given three opportunities to rebut the evidence of the complainant. However, none appeared for them to rebut the evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant and have also carefully gone through the complaint and evidence. As stated above no one appeared on behalf of the OPs throughout the proceedings.
6. The complainant in order to prove purchase of the mobile phone has produced retail invoice Ex.C-1 which shows that the mobile phone was purchased for Rs.5,499/- on dated 30.05.2014. As per warranty card Ex.C-2 there is warranty of 12 months beginning from the date of purchase of the product. As per the complainant the mobile set went out of order in December, 2014. He immediately contacted OP No.1 and other telephone numbers which was provided by OP No.1 but his problem could not be solved.
7. Ample opportunities of natural justice were given to the OPs but none appeared on their behalf. This shows that the OPs have deliberately not appeared before this Forum to rebut the pleadings and evidence of the complainant and, therefore, were proceeded against ex-parte. This absence on the part of the OPs is nothing but an admission from their own side as has been held by the Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in K.D. Ajay Khosh Vs. M/s. Alliance Habitat, CLT 2013 (2) 389. By considering the facts, circumstances and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant alongwith his affidavit, this Forum is of the view that the act of the OPs is nothing but an act of deficiency in service in accordance within the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Their non appearance in this Forum only shows that they have nothing to say.
8. Thus, the complaint is allowed with the following directions to the OPs to:
(a) replace the mobile in question with a new one of the same model to the satisfaction of the complainant.
OR
Refund Rs.5,499/- (Rs.Five thousand four hundred ninety nine only) to the complainant with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from 30.04.2014 till actual payment.
(b) pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) as compensation towards mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.
Compliance of this order be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
April 30, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(A.B. Aggarwal)
Member
