Haryana

Kaithal

127/15

Arun S/o Ramesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Narang Mobile ShopNo3 - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. 127/15
 
1. Arun S/o Ramesh
Vpo Batta,Kaithal
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Narang Mobile ShopNo3
Palika Bazar,Kaithal
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Jagmal Singh PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Rajbir Singh MEMBER
 HON'BLE MS. Harisha MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

 

Complaint no.127/15.

Date of instt.: 15.06.2015.

                                                        Date of Decision: 03.09.2015.

 Arun son of Ramesh r/o Village Batta, Tehsil Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal.

 

 

 

                                                                ……….Complainant.                               Versus

1. Narang Mobile, Shop No.3, Palika Bazar Kaithal through its prop. Owner, r/o Kaithal.

2. M/s. Parth Agency (Haryana) c/o City Centre, Inside Railway Gate Kaithal now Vishnu Market, Kaithal.

3. Micro Max House, 90-B, Sector-18, Gurgaon (Haryana)-122015.

 

..………OPs.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

                                                                                               

 

 

Before           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

                       

                       

                  

 Present :      Complainant in person.

                       OPs already exparte.

                                         

                       ORDER

 

(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).

 

 

                    The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a dual sim mobile Micromax Model-A066 having IMEI No.911378001024049 vide bill No.9793 dt. 22.03.2015 for a sum of Rs.3050/- from the Op No.1.  It is alleged that after some days, the said mobile became defective and camera of said mobile was not working.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops several times but despite several requests, the Ops did not make the said mobile in O.K. condition.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service and adopting unfair trade practice.  Hence, this complaint is filed.  

2.     Upon notice, the Ops did not appear and were proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 03.08.2015.

3.     The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and closed evidence on 31.08.2015.   

4.     We have heard the complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased a dual sim mobile Micromax Model-A066 having IMEI No.911378001024049 vide bill No.9793 dt. 22.03.2015 for a sum of Rs.3050/- from the Op No.1.  The complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint.  He argued that the said mobile became defective and camera of said mobile was not working.  The complainant approached the Ops several times but despite several requests, the Ops did not remove the defects from the above-said mobile phone.  The complainant stated that the said mobile is already deposited with the Ops and has not been returned by the Ops to the complainant.  The complainant has also tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill, Ex.C1 and copy of job-sheet dt. 31.08.2015, Ex.C2.  In the said job-sheet, the problem is reported as 5001 CAMERA:BAD IMAGE which means that the defect arose as per said job-sheet within warranty period and the Ops did not rectify the said defect from the mobile phone.  Whereas, on the other hand, the Ops did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte.  So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged.  So, we are of the considered view that the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.           

6.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint exparte and direct the Ops to give in place of defective mobile set of the complainant a new mobile set of the same model, as purchased by the complainant vide bill No.9793 dt. 22.03.2015.  However, it is made clear that if the said mobile as purchased by the complainant, is not available with the Ops, then the Ops shall refund Rs.3050/- as the cost of mobile to the complainant.   The Ops are also burdened with cost of Rs.1100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges to the complainant.  All the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of order till its realization, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. on the amount of Rs.3050/- from the date of commencement of this order till its realization.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.03.09.2015.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

 

                (Harisha Mehta),   (Rajbir Singh), 

                        Member.       Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Jagmal Singh]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Rajbir Singh]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MS. Harisha]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.