The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the averments that the complainant had purchased a mobile-Redmi Note 5 Pro Gold for consideration of Rs.15,600/- on 19.06.2018 from opposite party no.2 and opposite parties are liable for any deficiency in services on their part and as well as manufacturing/technical defect in the product given by opposite party in the warranty/guaranty period. It is alleged that, the above said mobile is not upto the mark, as after 6 months of its purchase found many defects in the mobile phone such like hang, battery backup low, auto decreased battery, handset overheat and taking long time for charging. The complainant approached the authorized service center i.e. opposite party no.3 and the opposite party no.3 kept the phone and returned to the complainant after its repair, but the defects of said mobile phone could not be removed. Complainant many a times visited the opposite party no. 3 for removing the defects in mobile, but they lingered on the matter with one pretext or the other, as such, complainant had to visit the centre for more than 14/ 15 times for removing the above said defects and last repair was done on 22.03.2019 but inspite of the information the opposite party no.1 has done nothing for removing the grievances of the complainant, hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as set is of no use and is not in working condition.

2.            It is alleged that complainant is a busy lawyer and most of his work depends on phone communication and due to defective phone set, his work has suffered and complainant has also suffered financial loss. The complainant approached the service center for more than 14-15 times and there was a great mental tension due to non working of mobile. Thus, necessity arose to file the present complaint with a prayer that the complaint may be accepted and opposite parties may be directed to replace the mobile of complainant with new mobile or the consideration Rs.15,600/- be paid to the complainant alongwith Rs.10,000/- compensation for causing mental harassment and suffering in his work besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

3.           Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, but none appeared, therefore opposite parties No.1 to 3 were proceeded against exparte.

4.         In order to prove the ex-parte claim of the complainant, complainant has filed with the complaint his own affidavit Ex.C1/A, copy of bill Ex.C1 and service record Ex.C2.

5.        We have heard learned complainant exparte and also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.          Complainant contended that within 6 months of purchase of mobile phone faced lots of issues such like hang, battery backup low, auto decreased battery, handset overheat and taking long time for charging. The complainant approached the authorized service center i.e. opposite party no.3, who despite efforts failed to remove the defects in the mobile phone, as such, the mobile set has manufacturing defects which could not be removed by the service centre of Ops. Thus, there is huge deficiency in service on their part, which amounts to deficiency in service.

7.            After considering the overall circumstances whatsoever put before us by the complainant itself reveals that the complainant- Arashdeep Singh had bought mobile set in question on 19.06.2018 worth Rs.15,600/-, which is proved on the file by bill Ex.C1. Further Ex.C2 reveals the service record issued by the Service Center which bears its signatures alongwith customer's signature, wherein it is clear that the complainant approached the opposite party no.3 for the repair of mobile phone within the warranty period. Further, perusal of Ex.C2 reveals under the column “Repair Method” noted as “102 Change Sub Board”, which shows that the repair work has been done and the set has been handed over to the complainant on 22.03.2019. It seems that the opposite parties have intentionally failed to provide after sale service to the complainant.

8.           The complainant has further alleged in his complaint as well as argued that although the set was repaired on 22.3.2019, but was not satisfied with its performance and set was of no use to him and accordingly faced lots of harassment at the hands of the opposite parties. It is pertinent to say that the complainant being an Advocate by profession does lots of communications and dealings on the mobile phone itself, even the clients from distance contacts on phone itself. Moreover, the mobile phone in today's journey is not a luxury thing, it has become a necessity to include in the daily life.

9.          Moreover, in the present case the opposite parties despite service did not come present and the evidence led by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged, so we find no ground to discard the ex-parte evidence of the complainant.

10.       So, under these circumstances, this Forum finds force in the arguments put forth the complainant and there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed ex-parte and the opposite parties are directed to get the defect removed by replacing the spare parts, if any, to the satisfaction of the complainant, failing which the opposite parties are directed to replace the mobile set. Further in failure the opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of cost of mobile phone to the complainant. OP No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- compensation. No order as to litigation expenses, as the complainant himself is an Advocate.

11.        Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. The complaint could not be decided within prescribed time due to rush of work.

ANNOUNCED:                  (Shri Raj Singh)                   (Rajita Sareen)

October 21, 2019.                   Member                         Presiding Member

 MK