Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/234

Tarlochan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s S.S.Communicataion - Opp.Party(s)

sharman Sehgal ADv.

15 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                C.C.No.234 of 08.04.2015

                                                          Date of decision:15.06.2015 

 

Tarlochan Singh aged about 64 years son of Shri Mohinder Singh, C/o Lamba Building Material Store, Chowk Baba Than Singh Ji, Ludhiana.

 

                                                          ….Complainant.

                                       Versus       

M/s. S.S.Communication, 688/8, Harcharan Nagar, Opp.Corporation Zone B, Backside Shingar Cinema, Ludhiana, through its Partner/Prop.  

                                                                             …Opposite party

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:    Sh. R.L.Ahuja, President.

                   Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member.

 

Present:       Sh.Sharwan Sehgal, Adv, for complainant.

Op ex-parte.

 

                                                ORDER

 

R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT.  

 

1.                Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Sh.Tarlochan Singh(hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Complainant’) against M/s. S.S.Communication, 688/8, Harcharan Nagar, Opp.Corporation Zone B, Backside Shingar Cinema, Ludhiana, through its Partner/Prop (hereinafter in short to be described as ‘Op’), directing them to return the tablet of the complainant after repairing the same alongwith compensation at the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

2.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that the complainant has bought a Tablet Make Karbon and as that tablet was not working properly, the complainant went to the office of the OP as the OP is the authorized service centre of Karbon Mobiles and Tablets. On 1.10.2014, when the complainant went to the establishment of the OP, he was told that the Circuit System was not working properly well and it was repaired and Rs.1150/- was charged from the complainant. The tablet was not repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant as it was not working properly, the complainant had to again come to the office of OP for the same purpose i.e .repair of the tablet and he was told that battery was not working properly and accordingly that was replaced and Rs.450/- was charged from the complainant. Now again the tablet was not working properly and suffered technical faults and flaws and due to that the complainant had given the same in the office of OP. He was issued service report No.A/10173. As and when the complainant visited in the office of OP, he was told that the tablet was being repaired. Now about two months has elapsed but nothing concrete has been done. The complainant served a legal notice dated 1.12.2014 upon the OP but with no result. Such act and conduct of OP is claimed to be deficiency in service on their part by the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, earlier Sh.Sunil Kumar Verma, Owner of OP had put his appearance and when the case was fixed for filing w/s by OP, neither Sh.Sunil Kumar Verma had put his appearance nor any authorized representative had put appearance on behalf of OP and as such, OP was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 5.6.2015 by this District Forum.

4.                In order to prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the ex-parte evidence of complainant.

5.                We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.

6.                Perusal of the record reveals that learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA, in which, he has reiterated all the allegations made by him in the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has proved on record the documents Ex.C1 copy of bill No.5 dated 1.10.2014 qua the repair of the tablet in question by the OP after charging of Rs.1150/-, Ex.C2 copy of another bill No.37 of 16.10.2014 qua the repair of the tablet in question by the OP after charging of Rs.450/ from the complainant, Ex.C3 copy of Service report issued by Karbon company, Ex.C4 copy of legal notice dated 1.12.2014 issued by the complainant to the OP and Ex.C5 copy of postal receipt.

7.                Since, the OP did not appear and contest the present complaint, so evidence adduced by the complainant goes unchallenged and unrebutted.

8.               From the allegations of the complainant as well as the evidence on record, it is apparently clear that complainant had got repaired the tablet in question from the OP twicely i.e. on 1.10.2014 and 16.10.2014 and paid the repair charges to the tune of Rs.1150/- and Rs.450/- respectively, which fact is clearly evident from the copies of documents EX.C1 and Ex.C2. However, despite repair by the OP, the tablet of the complainant was not working properly and it is a proved fact that tablet is still lying with the OP, which the OP has not delivered to the complainant after its repair which fact is clearly evident from the copy of legal notice dated 1.12.2014 Ex.C4 served upon the complainant by the OP, which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

9.                In view of the above discussion, by allowing this complaint, we direct the OP to handover the tablet in question to the complainant after carrying out the necessary repair of the same by replacing or repairing the defective parts of the same which were replaced earlier and make the same proper functional to the entire satisfaction of the complainant without any costs. Further, for causing sufferance and harassment to the complainant, OP is directed to pay compensation and litigation costs compositely assessed at Rs.2500/-(Two thousand and five hundred only) to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

                               (Sat Paul Garg)                         (R.L.Ahuja)

                             Member                                    President 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:15.06.2015

Gurpreet Sharma