DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:32 of 2011] Date of Institution : 20.01.2011 Date of Decision : 08.07.2011 ------------------------------------------- Sh. Jagtar Singh son of Sh. Mohinder Singh resident of House No.26, Village Jujjhar Nagar, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. ---Complainant. V E R S U S 1. M/s Three Vee Marketing (P) Ltd. through its Proprietor/Managing Director Sh. Vivek, SCO No.1028- 1029, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh. 2. M/s Nokia through its Regional Manager, Regional Office, Sector 35-C, SCO No.461-462, Sector 35, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER Argued By:Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for the complainant. OP already exparte. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh. Jagtar Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP No.1 be directed:- i) To refund Rs.13,200/- being the price of the mobile along with interest @24% per annum; ii) To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, and harassment; iii) To pay the costs of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 08.11.2010, he purchased a Nokia N-79 -1S Grey mobile from OP No.1 vide Bill No.TVM/09-10/06012 (Annexure C-1). The said mobile phone became defective within two days of its purchase. The complainant approached OP No.1 and handed over the defective handset to it for necessary repairs/replacement. The allegation of the complainant is that till date neither the mobile in question has been repaired nor any suitable reply is forthcoming from OPs. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 06.01.2011 upon OP No.1 but nothing was heard. According to the complainant, failure to repair or replace the mobile set amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. OP No.1 was duly served as per the report of the Process Server but it chose not to appear before the Forum and therefore, OP No.1 was ordered to be proceeded against vide order dated 04.03.2011. Similarly, OP No.2 was also served through Process Served on fresh address but none appeared on its behalf, hence, it was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.04.2011. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record. 5. The averments made in the complaint as reproduced above stands corroborated from the affidavit of the complainant as well as from documents annexed with the complaint. Annexure C-1 is the Bill issued by OP No.1 regarding the purchase of the mobile set in question for a sum of Rs.13,200/-. The averment made by the complainant to the effect that the mobile set became defective and un-functional finds corroboration from the endorsement on the back of the Bill (Annexure C-1) that the mobile set has been received back for repair/replacement. According to the complainant, the mobile set was neither repaired nor replaced. This averment finds corroboration from the affidavit filed by the complainant. Failure on the part of OPs to repair or replace the mobile set amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The mere fact that the mobile set has not been repaired so far leads to an inference that the same suffers from some inherent and manufacturing defect. In these circumstances, the complainant is liable for the refund of the price of the mobile set in question as the same is non-repairable. 6. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed:- i) to refund the amount of Rs.13,200/- to the complainant being the billed price of the mobile set in question. ii) to Pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment. iii) to pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. 7. This order be complied with by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to pay Rs.18,200/- i.e. [Rs.13,200 + Rs.5,000) along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.20.01.2011 till actual payment besides payment Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation. 8. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 8th July 2011. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Ad/-
DISTRICT FORUM-II C.C.No.32 of 2011 ORDER Present: Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for the complainant. OP already exparte. --- As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 08.07.2011 President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
