Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 107.
Instituted on : 09.02.2016.
Decided on : 18.05.2016.
Ankur Narang s/o Sh. Madan Mohan R/o H.No. 383/13, Tej Colony Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Customer Care Office, YU Televentres Pvt. Ltd. 90-B, Sector-18, Gurgaon-122015 through its Manager.
- M/s Shri Hari Computer Solutions SCO-189 HUDA Complex, Rohtak through its Manager.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Jaikaran Khatri Advocate for complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a YU Yureka Mobile phone online on 06.05.2015 by making payment of Rs.9000/- after delivery of phone. It is averred that just after two months of the purchase of above said mobile phone it started creating problem i.e. charging problem due to which the complainant could not use the said mobile phone. It is averred that complainant contacted the customer care by mail and they assured to replace the mobile phone of the complainant and they replaced the said phone of the complainant after 30-40 days and a new mobile phone was supplied to the complainant but the said mobile phone was also not in working condition and was completely dead. The complainant has contacted with the customer care and they asked the complainant to approach to service centre and on 27.10.2015 the complainant deposited the mobile phone for repairing and they assured to return the mobile phone after 21 days but even after passing a sufficient long period neither the phone of the complainant has been repaired nor replaced. It is averred that the complainant through his counsel got served a legal notice on dated 21.11.2015 to the opposite parties and thereafter the opposite parties have changed the mobile phone of the complainant. The said phone is also not working properly and is having sensor problem. The complainant requested the opposite parties to change his mobile phone or to refund the cost of his mobile phone but the opposite parties are not paying any heed towards the request of complainant. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of mobile phone alongwith compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite parties through registered post but none appeared on behalf of opposite parties and as such opposite parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.03.2016 of this Forum.
3. Complainant led evidence in support of his case.
4. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that as per bill Ex.C1 complainant had purchased a YU Yureka phone online for a sum of Rs.8999/- which was dispatched to the complainant on 07.05.2015. It is also not disputed that as per job sheet dated 27.10.2015 issued by opposite party no.1 there was defect of “power does not switch on” in the alleged handset. It is also observed that as per Dispatch Slip Ex.C3 dated 28.11.2015 the mobile was replaced by the opposite party. The contention of ld. counsel for the complainant is that the replaced mobile was also defective and as such the complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the same and also served a legal notice Ex.C6 to the opposite parties but no reply was given by the opposite parties. It is averred that the defects in the mobile set appeared during the warranty period and the replaced mobile was also dead and as such the opposite parties are liable to refund the price of mobile set alongwith compensation.
6. After going through the file and hearing ld. counsel for the complainant, it is also observed that opposite parties have not appeared before this Forum to rebut the version taken by the complainant in his complaint and were proceeded against exparte and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter. Therefore all the versions put forth by the complainant regarding defects in the alleged mobile set stands proved.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the opposite party no.1 being the manufacturer of the mobile phone is liable to refund the price of mobile phone to the complainant. As such it is directed that opposite party no.1 shall refund the price of mobile phone i.e Rs.8999/-(Rupees eight thousand nine hundred ninety nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 09.02.2016 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry further interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the disputed mobile set to the opposite parties. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
18.05.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
