DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                                                  C.C. No.131 of 23.09.2014      

                                                  Decided on: 30.01.2015

Padam Parshad son  of Sh.Bina Ram, resident of D-2, Officer Colony, Fatehgarh Sahib.

                                                            ……..Complainant

                                         Versus

1. Narinder Enterprises, Cinema road, Sirhind Mandi, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib through its authorized signatory.
2. New Bawa Comination near Masalawali Gali, Railway Road, Sirhind, Tehsil & District Fatehgarh Sahib.

                                             …..Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 TO 14

OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

Smt. Veena Chahal, Member.

Present :    Sh.Harjit Singh,Advocate, for the complainant.

                  Ops No.1&2 exparte.             

ORDER

 By Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

1. Complainant Padam Parshad resident of Fatehgarh Sahib has filed this complaint against the opposite parties ( hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. On 14.4.2014,the complainant purchased a Micromax Mobile  hand set having model No.DOODLE A-111 and IMEI No.911307204318619 for an amount of Rs.10,000/-with a guarantee/warranty of one year from OP no.1.In the first week of May 2014 the mobile hand set became defective there being occurred problems of hanging, automatically off and call having not responded. The complainant approached OP no.1 who got the mobile hand set repaired from the authorized service care centre. After that the mobile hand set again became non functional. The complainant so many times  approached OP No.1 as well as authorized service care centre of the ops  but to no effect. The complainant time and again requested the OPs either to repair the mobile hand set or to replace the same with new one or to refund the price of the mobile hand set but no heed was paid to the request of the complainant. Thus there was deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint for a direction to the OPs to refund the price of the hand set i.e. Rs.10,000/- and Rs.40,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and  harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs who failed to come present despite service and were thus proceeded against exparte.
4. In the exparte evidence, the complainant tendered in evidence his  affidavit, Ex.C1, copy of bill, Ex.C2 and closed the evidence.

5.       The ld.counsel for the complainant has submitted that after repeated visits made by the complainant the mobile hand set could not be repaired by the OPs . The complainant requested the OPs to replace the same with new one but they totally refused and nor did the OPs issued any such receipt of the repair. The ld. counsel argued that the act and conduct of the OPs shows that the OPs were negligent in repairing the said mobile set and cause mental as well as physical harassment to the complainant.

6.       After  hearing the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and going through the pleadings and the evidence, arguments ,we are of the considerate view that, it was the responsibility of OP  no.2  to repair or replace the Mobile Set since it was under warranty. The OP no.1 is only the retailer hence he has nothing to do with the defect in the said mobile set. Hence we find that the OP no.2  has committed deficiency of service and had been negligent in repairing the mobile set or replacing the same. Accordingly we direct the OP no.2  to properly repair/rectify the Mobile Set within a period of 15 days and if the problem persists again, then replace the same with a new one or refund the amount of Rs.10,000 /-  within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Hence the present complaint is  partly accepted, complainant is also held entitled to the damages suffered by him on account of harassment and mental tension. The damages are assessed at Rs. 2500/- and litigation cost of Rs.1500/-. The damages and the costs may be paid within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of  this order.

7.        The arguments on the complaint were heard on 29.1 .2015   and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced                                    

Dated:30.1.2015

                                                                                      (A.P.S.Rajput)

                                                                                      President     

                                                                                      (Veena Chahal)

                                                                                      Member