Haryana

Karnal

CC/113/2016

Amit Kamboj S/o Dharam Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s New Mass Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Yoginder Singh

08 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                              Complaint No.113 of 2016

                                                             Date of instt.:12.04.2016

                                                               Date of decision 08.12.2016

 

Amit Kamboj, age about 33 years son of Shri Dharam Pal resident of village and Post Office Chamrouri, Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. New Mass Communication, SCO no.152, 1^st floor, Mugal Canal Market, Karnal-132001 through its partner/proprietor.

2. WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. 42/1 & 43, Kacherakanahalli village, Jagigenahalli, Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore, Karnataka, India through its Managing Director.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Shri Yajvinder Singh Advocate for complainant.

                    Opposite parties exparte.                  

ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he purchased a mobile Moto G( 2^nd Generation) bearing IMEI no.353326069946095 from opposite party no.2(online) for a sum of Rs.10,999/-, vide bill dated 15.06.2015, with a warranty of one year. The opposite party no.1 was authorized service centre of the company. After few days of purchase, it started giving problems. He approached the opposite party no.1 for repair of the mobile set, who issued a customer unit receipt dated 19.12.2015. Opposite party no.1 asked him to come after one week, but the mobile set was not repaired and he was further asked to come after some days. Thereafter, as per assurance of opposite party no.1 he again visited the office of opposite party no.1 for getting his mobile phone, but opposite party no.1, did not return the mobile phone and lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. He visited several times, but opposite party no.1 did not return the mobile.  Such acts on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service on their part, which caused him mental agony, harassment and financial loss

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties. None put into appearance on behalf of opposite parties despite service, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated against them.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex. CW1A and documents Ex.C1 to C3 have been tendered.

4                 We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the documents placed on file carefully.

5.                The complainant purchased a mobile Moto G( 2^nd Generation) bearing IMEI no.353326069946095 from opposite party no.2(online) for a sum of Rs.10,999/-, vide bill dated 15.06.2015, with a warranty of one year. As per allegations of the complainant, after few days the mobile set was not working properly, as there were problems of charging, damage and  no power on, so he reported the matter to opposite party no.1, the authorized service centre of the company, who kept the hand set for rectification of defects, but did not rectify the defects and also did not return the mobile set. The complainant has filed his affidavit in support of his allegations. The copy of the job sheet Ex.C1 clearly shows that the mobile set was having problems during warranty period. Thus, evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. It was the duty of the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 either to rectify the defects or in case the defects were not repairable then replace the mobile set of the complainant. Hence, it is well proved that the service of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 was deficient.

6.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the mobile set in question of the complainant with new one of the same value. We further direct the opposite parties to  pay Rs.2200/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 08.12.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member