Haryana

Panchkula

CC/209/2015

SANDEEP KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S LUCKY MOBILES &OTHERS. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

01 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.             

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	209 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	01.10.2015
Date of Decision	:	01.04.2016

                                                                                          

Sandeep Kumar, age 32 years, s/o Sh.Krishan Lal, R/o Village Mirpur, PO Mubarikpur, Tehsil Derabassi, Distt. Mohali, Punjab.

 

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Lucky Mobiles, SCO No.1012-13, First Floor, Cabin No.102, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through it proprietor.
2. M/s AKS Telecom, SCO-1092, Cabin No.10 & 11, First Floor, Chandigarh, Sector-22, Chandigarh through its Manager/authorized person.
3. Ranvir Mobile Solution, No.462, Opposite Gurudwara, Village Abheypur, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Panchkula through its Manager.
4. United Telelinks (Bangalore) Ltd., No.39/13, Apparenddypalya Main Road, Off. 7^th Main, HAL 2^nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore-560038 through its Directors/Authorised signatory.

                                                                    ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                             Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person. 

Ops already ex-parte.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. Sandeep Kumar-complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a Karbonn mobile handset Model-1 Plus, white vide IMEI No.911305353265763 from Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.4290/- with warranty of one year and gave the assurance that the set was all right & it would work effectively. After one months of its purchase, the mobile phone started giving problem in switch on/off. On 06.05.2015, the complainant approached the Op No.2 for the repair of his mobile who after inspection stated that the problem was a serious one and it would take few days to repair the mobile. After passing 28 days i.e. in the month of June, 2015, the complainant approached the Op No.2 for taking his repaired mobile. But the mobile was not fully repaired and it was giving same problem in between its operation. The complainant complained Op No.2 who told that it would not appear after few days as it would take few time to come in normal operation because new software was installed in the mobile. But the mobile was giving abovesaid problem and on 06.08.2015, the complainant approached the Op No.3 for repair. After taking the mobile, the OP No.3 stated that the problem was a serious one and it would take few days to repair. After passing one month i.e. in the month of September, 2015, the complainant approached the Op No.3 for taking the delivery of his mobile but the problem was not resolved by the Op No.3. On 10.09.2015, the complainant again approached the Op No.3 with the problem of switch on/off who told the complainant that the problem was a serious one and it would take few days to repair the said mobile. After passing 20 days, the complainant approached the office of Op No.3 for taking the delivery of mobile but the Op No.3 lingered on the matter. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the Op No.1 and the same has been received back after effecting service. But none has appeared on behalf of the Op No.1 and the Op No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.02.2016
3. Notice was issued to the Ops No.2 to 4 through registered post but none appeared on behalf of Ops No.2 to 4. Despite passing of 30 days, it is deemed to be served and the Ops No.2 to 4 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.11.2015.
4. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant appearing in person and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
6. Admittedly, the complainant purchased a Karbonn mobile handset Model-1 Plus, white vide IMEI No.911305353265763 from Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.4290/- with warranty of one year (Annexure C-1). After passing one month of its purchase, the mobile phone started giving problem in switch on/off. On 06.05.2015, the complainant approached the Op No.2 who after inspection stated that the problem was a serious one & it would take few days to repair and issued job sheet vide Annexure C-2. In the month of June, 2015, the complainant took the delivery of his repaired mobile but the mobile was not fully repaired and it was giving same problem in between its operation. On 06.08.2015, the complainant approached the Op No.3 for repair who issued job sheet dated 06.08.2015 with remarks “auto on off/SFR” but after repair, the problem was not resolved by the Op No.3. On 10.09.2015, the complainant again approached the Op No.3 with the problem of switch on/off who also issued job sheet vide Annexure C-4. After 20 days, the complainant approached the Op No.3 to deliver the handset but to no avail. The mobile is still with the Op No.3. The complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavit (Annexure C-A).
7. Moreover, the Ops did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Ops despite notices show that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the same are accepted as correct and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops is proved.
8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Ops are jointly and severely directed as under:-

(i)      To refund the cost of mobile i.e. Rs.4290/- to the complainant alongwith 9% interest from the date of purchase i.e. 02.04.2015 till realization.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.1000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

01.04.2016      S.P.ATTRI          ANITA KAPOOR         DHARAM PAL

                                  MEMBER           MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

         

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT