Haryana

Jind

CC/15/147

Naveen Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Tarash Overseas Op1 And Prop Hari Computer Solution OP2 - Opp.Party(s)

10 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 158 of 2015
   Date of Institution: 29.10.2015
   Date of final order: 10.8.2016

Naveen Kumar s/o Sh. Sanjay Kumar r/o H.No.745/10 Vishav Karma Colony near Area road, Jind,Tehsil and District Jind.

                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
M/s Tarash Overseas Pvt. Ltd. plot No.5, Sector-27 near Ssr Corporate Tower, Faridabad, Haryana 121003.
Prop. Hari Computer Solutions, HUDA Complex near B.S.N.L. office, Rohtak. 
                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
    Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. Naveen Kumar complainant in person.
              Opposite parties already ex-parte. 

ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had  demanded a mobile tablet through online and he received  HCL Dual Sim and Dual Core 3 G mobile set  vide invoice No. TARA/14-15/547207 dated 31.12.2014 worth Rs.6,999/- from opposite party No.1.  After some days the above said mobile tablet was having manufacturing defect and did not work properly. The complainant made a complaint through customer care No.18601800425 from 
              Naveen Kumar Vs. M/s Tarash Overseas etc.
                        …2…
opposite party No.1 for rectifying the defect of the mobile tablet, the opposite party No.1 told to the complainant to approach with opposite party No.2 i.e. authorized care/service centre. The complainant deposited the above said mobile tablet to opposite party No.2 for removing the defect.  Thereafter, complainant went to the office of opposite party  No.2 to collect his mobile tablet, the opposite party No.2 demanded some parts of mobile tablet and  assured that the tablet will be  returned after repairing the same but when he again approached to the office of opposite party No.2  and  told that the parts of the mobile tablet has not yet come and straightway refused to entertain the complaint of complainant and did not gave the mobile tablet to him. The complainant visited several times to the opposite parties and requested to rectify the defect of the mobile tablet but the opposite party No.2 neither removed the defect of the mobile tablet nor refund the same to him.  Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to  replace the defective  mobile tablet with new one as well as to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony  to the complainant. 
2.    The opposite parties were proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 9.12.2015 and 11.7.2016 respectively. 
3.    In   ex-parte evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Annexure C-1, retail invoice  Annexure C-2 and service call notice Annexure  C-3 and closed the evidence. 

            Naveen Kumar Vs. M/s Tarash Overseas etc.
                        …3…
4.    We have heard the complainant in person  and perused the record placed on file. The complainant has purchased the mobile tablet against a sum of Rs.6,999/- on 31.12.2014 from opposite party No.1. The complainant argued that after  some days of its purchase the mobile  tablet  was having manufacturing defect and did not work properly.  It is further argued that he visited the opposite parties several times for removing the defect of the mobile tablet but the opposite parties have not removed the same and prayed to allow the complaint. The opposite parties were proceeded against ex-parte. 
5.    We have gone through the record, it is clear that the complainant had purchased  the mobile tablet on line  vide retail invoice  Annexure C-2 dated 31.12.2014 for Rs.6,999/- and mobile tablet in question became defective and he approached to the opposite party No.2 i.e. service centre and  they have issued the service call notice  vide Annexure C-3 dated 9.3.2015 in which  problem reported the  display/back camra but the  mobile tablet has not been rectified by the opposite party No.2 and the said mobile tablet is still lying with the opposite parties. The mobile  tablet in question became defective within warranty period and complainant has also filed the complaint within time.  In this regard the complainant has also filed the affidavit, the evidence  adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted because  opposite parties did not turn up to controvert the version of the complainant.
6.    In view of above discussion, we have no hesitation to allow this complaint. Hence, the complaint is allowed with cost and opposite 
            Naveen Kumar Vs. M/s Tarash Overseas etc.
                        …4…
parties are directed to refund the cost of mobile tablet amounting to Rs.6,999/-(Rs. six thousand nine hundred ninety nine only). The order be complianced within 30 days after receiving the certified copy of orders , failing which the opposite parties are directed pay a simple interest@9% p.a. from the date of  filing of the complaint i.e. 29.10.2015 till its final realization.  We assessed as Rs. 1100/-(Rs. eleven hundred only) as litigation expenses to the  complainant.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.
Announced on: 10.8.2016

                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Naveen Kumar Vs. M/s Tarash Overseas etc.
                        
Present:  Sh. Naveen Kumar complainant in person.
              Opposite parties already ex-parte. 

              Arguments heard. To come up on 10.8.2016 for orders. 
                                    President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  8.8.2016

Present:  Sh. Naveen Kumar complainant in person.
              Opposite parties already ex-parte. 

         Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                          President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  10.8.2016