DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 406 of 23.10.2017

                                      Decided on:              6.3.2018

Arsh Mahajan age 21 years son of sh.Rajiv Kumar, resident of House No. B-510,Garden Heights, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       M/s U -Televentures Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.21/14. Block A, Narayan Ind Area, Phase-2, New Delhi.

2.       M.S.Mobile Tech, B-1, Ranjit Plaza, Near Hotel Jiwan Plaza, Bhupindra Road, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.Arsh Mahajan, complainant in person.

                                      Opposite Parties ex-parte.

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM  GUPTA,  MEMBER

1. The complainant purchased one mobile phone through on-line service of M/s Flipkart company on 26.12.2016 for a sum of Rs.6499/- vide invoice No.FOYSF-00217-00075436 from OP no.1. It is averred that on 29.3.2017 the said mobile phone became defective and the complainant got the mobile phone deposited with OP no.1 i.e. the service centre of the company vide job sheet dated 30.3.2017. The complainant visited OP no.2 time and again and on 3.5.2017, OP no.2 returned the mobile phone of the complainant. It is very pertinent to mention that the mobile phone of the complainant was Android Version but when he received back the mobile phone after repair, it was Synogen Version and that too was not working. On the very same day i.e. on 3.5.2017, the complainant again deposited the mobile phone with Op no.2 who after rectifying the same returned the mobile phone on 1.6.2017 but the previous problem still persisted. Again on 19.6.2017 the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP no.2. the complainant being a student of B.tech needed mobile phone for his studies and in the absence of the mobile phone he suffered a lot from the education point of view. After that when the complainant got back the mobile phone, he remained busy in his studies for the examination for two months. After that he visited OP no.2 on 12.10.2017 for the repair of the mobile phone but the OP no.2 explained its inability to rectify the same. As a result, the complainant underwent a lot of harassment at the hands of the OP no.2 and finding no alternative,  he approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986.
2. On notice, OPs failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against ex-parte.
3. In support of his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA his affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C4 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
5. Ex.C1 is the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased one mobile phone from OP no.1 on 26.12.2017.Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 are the three job sheets dated 30.3.2017, 3.5.2017 and 19.6.2017. The complainant approached OP no.2 i.e. the service centre time and again. Despite rectifying the defect, the problem could not be solved and the complainant underwent a lot of harassment. These days mobile phone is a basic necessity and in the absence of the same, the complainant suffered in his studies also. The problem occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period and the OPs were bound to rectify the same which they failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on their part. Moreover, failure on the part of the OPs to contest the claim of the complainant, shows the indifferent attitude of the OPs to redress the grievance of the complainant.
6. As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to the OPs to refund an amount of Rs.6499/- i.e. the price of the mobile phone to the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.2500/-as compensation for the harassment undergone by him and also a sum of rs.2500/-as litigation expenses . Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.  Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:6.3.2018         

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER