Haryana

Sonipat

CC/466/2015

Surender Kumar S/o Shiv Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

New Kohinoor Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Surender Kumar

26 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                Complaint No.466 of 2015

Instituted on: 17.12.2015                                                     

Date of order: 08.06.2016

 

 

Surender Kumar son of Shiv Kumar, resident of village Nandnaur, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.          Versus

New Kohinoor Mobile near City Plaza Mama Bhanja Chowk, Sonepat.                                             

 

                                                                                                …Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: None for the complainant.

           Sh. Dheeraj Sachdeva, Advocate for respondent.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

          Prabha Wati-Member.

          

 

O R D E R

 

         The present case was/is fixed for 2.6.2016 and today(8.6.2016) for arguments.

         But it is very sorry state of affairs that on 2.6.2016 and today itself, none has appeared on behalf of the complainant.  The present complaint deserves to be dismissed in default. But we have decided to dispose off the present complaint on the basis of the material available on the case file.

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that on 3.3.2015 he has purchased one mobile of Xolo company from the respondent with one year warranty. When the complainant put the mobile on charging, the same was not ‘ON’. The complainant has deposited the same with the respondent on 11.12.2015.  After some time, when the complainant visited the respondent to collect his mobile, the respondent told that there is internal breakage in the mobile. At the time when the complainant has deposited his mobile, the same was in good condition and was in warranty period. This wrongful act  of the respondent has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Thus, the complainant has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, the respondent has submitted that on 11.12.2015 the complainant has approached the respondent.  The respondent checked the mobile and has resolved the problem as was reported by the complainant and the mobile was handed over to the complainant in OK condition on the same day.  But after it, the complainant started demanding the replacement of his mobile with new one.  The respondent is not liable to replace the mobile or to  refund the cost of the mobile.  There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondent and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard the ld. Counsel for the respondent at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.  

         The complainant in his complaint has submitted that on 3.3.2015 he has purchased one mobile of Xolo company from the respondent with one year warranty. When the complainant put the mobile on charging, the same was not ‘ON’. The complainant has deposited the same with the respondent on 11.12.2015.  After some time, when the complainant visited the respondent to collect his mobile, the respondent told that there is internal breakage in the mobile. At the time when the complainant has deposited his mobile, the same was in good condition and was in warranty period. This wrongful act  of the respondent has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that on 11.12.2015 the complainant has approached the respondent.  The respondent checked the mobile and has resolved the problem as was reported by the complainant and the mobile was handed over to the complainant in OK condition on the same day.  But after it, the complainant started demanding the replacement of his mobile with new one.  The respondent is not liable to replace the mobile or to  refund the cost of the mobile.  There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the respondent and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

         As per document C-1, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that on 3.3.2015 the complainant has purchased mobile from the respondent worth Rs.10,000/-.  Further as per documents Annexure C-2 and R-1, the complainant has approached the respondent with complaint of non-switching of mobile.

         The plea of the complainant is that he has deposited his mobile on 11.12.2015 with the respondent in good condition. But when he approached the respondent to collect his mobile after its repair, it was told by the respondent that there is internal breakage in the mobile and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  By way of present complaint, the complainant has sought the relief to direct the respondent to repair his mobile and further to compensate him for unnecessary harassment etc.

         Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent to repair the mobile set of the complainant and to hand over the same to the complainant in working condition.  The respondent is further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- (Rs.two thousand) for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

         Certified copy of this order he provided to both the parties free of cost.

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)                   (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF,                    President, DCDRF

Sonepat.                          Sonepat.

 

Announced 08.06.2016