DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:821 of 2010] Date of Institution : 23.12.2010 Date of Decision : 25.08.2011 Sh. Dharmvir Gupta son of Sh. Bhothi Gupta, House No.7, Phase III, Bapu Dham Colony, Sector 26, Chandigarh. ---Complainant. V E R S U S 1. M/s Naresh Department Store, SCO No.1026, Sector 22-B, (Opposite Main Bus Stand), Chandigarh. 2. Malik Communication, Quite Office No.12, Cabin No.3&4, Sector 35A, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Dharmvir Gupta, complainant in person. OPs already exparte. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh. Dharmvir Gupta has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed :- i) To make the mobile set serviceable. ii) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 19.06.2010, he purchased a Micromax Mobile W900 from OP No.1 vide Bill No.20123 worth Rs.7,650/-. The said mobile set went out order and became dead after six months from its purchase and the same was handed over to OP No.2 i.e. Malik Communication (authorised service centre) for necessary repairs on 19.11.2010 vide Job Card No.559. It was informed by OP No.2 to the complainant that the repair of the mobile set would cost Rs.7,500/-. According to the complainant, he approached the OPs with a request to repair the handset without any charges as it was covered under warranty till that day. But the OPs refused to do so. The case of the complainant is that since the mobile set was under warranty, it should have been repaired without charging anything from him. Refusal to repair the handset without charges in such circumstances amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. OP No.1 was duly served through courier but it chose not to appear before the Forum whereas OP No.2 refused to accept the summons and thus, both OPs No.1 and 2 were ordered to be proceeded against vide order dated 09.02.2011. 4. We have heard Sh. Dharmvir Gupta (complainant in person) and also have perused the record. 5. From the perusal of Cash Memo dated 19.06.2010, photocopy of which is placed on record by the complainant, it is proved that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question from Naresh Departmental Store i.e. OP No.1 for Rs.7,650/-. Further, from perusal of the copy of Customer Job Card, it is very much clear that the mobile set in question was dead when it was taken to OP No.2 for repair. This fact has further been authenticated by the engineer of OP No.2 who also reported in the Job Card that the mobile set was dead at the time of repair. Thus, it is proved beyond doubt that the mobile set in question was totally dead and non functional. In the absence of any reply or affidavit from the side of OPs, who chose not to appear before the Forum, the averments made in the complaint have gone un-rebutted. Failure to repair the mobile set without charging any amount in the circumstances mentioned above amounts to deficiency in service. 6. As the mobile set has not been repaired so far despite the fact that a period of nine months have already elapsed, so, OPs are liable to return the fully repaired mobile set to the complainant without charging anything from him. 7. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with the following directions to OPs, jointly and severally to:- (i) return the mobile set in question after making it fully functional and without any defect to the satisfaction of the complainant; (ii) pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment; (iii) pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation; 8. This order be complied with by OPs jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to refund the invoice price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.7,650/- to the complainant along with interest @18% per annum from the date of invoice i.e.19.06.2010 till actual payment whereas the amount of compensation of Rs.5,000/- shall also carry interest at the same rate i.e.18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.23.12.2010 till actual payment besides payment of Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation. 9. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 25th August 2011. (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.821 of 2010 Argued By: None. . --- The case was reserved on 18.08.2011. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned to the record room. Announced. (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) 25.08.2011 President Member
| | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
