BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                Consumer Complaint No. 111 of 2018.

                                                Date of Institution:         06.09.2018.

                                                Date of Decision:           08.03.2019.                                      

Raju son of Shri Pat Ram, resident of near old Bus Stand, Kumharon Ka Mohalla, Bhiwani.

…..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1.       New Mobile Shoppe through its Proprietor, old Bus Stand, opposite Crown Plaza, Bhiwani.

2.       Prince Mobile through its Proprietor, Hansi Gate Chowk, Bhiwani.

3.       Lawa Service Centre through Proprietor-cum-Branch Incharge, opposite K. M. Public School, Bhiwani.

…..Opposite Parties.

                             Complaint under Section 12 of the

 Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.

                   Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   None for the OP No. 1.

                   OPs No. 2 & 3 already exparte.

ORDER:-

PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

              Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a mobile set i.e. Lava KKT 34 Power, bearing IMEI No. 911605450172162, 911605451432169 on 13.1.2018 for Rs.1500/- from OP No.1 and second mobile set i.e. Lava KKT 34 Power, bearing IMEI No. 911605457448995, 911605457448998 on 7.7.2018 for Rs.1500/- from OP No.2.  It is alleged that the above said mobiles not working properly since purchase and the complainant approached the OP No. 3 for the repair of the same, but the OP No. 3 told that the plate of mobile has become defective and same is required to be replaced and demanded cost of plate as Rs.690/- by saying that there is no warranty of plate of mobile and the complainant has to pay the same.  It is further alleged that the plate of the second mobile has also become defective and the OP No. 3 not repaired the above said mobiles despite several visits by the complainant.  Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, OP No. 1 appeared and filed the contested written statement denying the allegations of the complainant.  It is alleged that the answering OP has sold the mobile sealed in box and the complainant has opened the box and checked the mobile and inserted his SIM in the mobile.  It is further alleged that the warranty of the mobile set is of the Lava Service Centre and not of the answering OP.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint qua answering OP.  

3.                On notice no appeared on behalf of the OPs No. 2 and 3, despite service through registered post and the OPs No.2 and 3 were proceeded as exparte vide order dated 11.10.2018. 

4.                Complainant has placed on record copies of bills as Annexure C1 and Annexure-C2 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the complainant at length.

5.              The case of the complainant goes unchallenged and un-rebutted, as the OPs have failed to appear before this Forum despite service of summons.  It appears that the claim of complainant is genuine and there is nothing on record in favour of OPs.  Complainant has also placed copies of bills as Annexure C1 and C2 to prove his case.  From the perusal of the documents reveals that the complainant has purchased the mobile set on 13.1.2018 and 7.7.2018 for a sum of Rs.1500/- each.  The sole contention of complainant is that mobile sets in question not working properly since the purchase and the OP No. 3 not repaired the same.  As such, all the allegations leveled against the opposite party No. 3 that it being authorized service centre of Lava has failed in repairing the mobile sets in question, free of costs during the warranty period, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 3.

6.                Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances and the evidence brought on record by complainant, we partly allowed the complaint and the OP No. 3 is directed as under :-

i.        To refund Rs.3000/- (cost of both mobile sets) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint tills its realization.

ii.       To pay Rs.2500/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship, due to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 and cost of litigation.

          The complainant is directed to hand over the old mobile sets to the OP No.3.  Compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order.  In case of default, the OP No. 3 shall liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on total amount as directed above vide clause No. i to ii from the date of default i.e. after 30 days from the date of this order i.e. 08.03.2019.  Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open court.

08.03.2019.         

(Saroj Bala Bohra)                    (Parmod Kumar)             (Manjit Singh Naryal)

Member.                        Member.                         President,

                                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.