DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.180 of 15
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 23.06.2015
DATE OF ORDER: -26.07.2016
Manish Goyal son of Anand Kumar Goyal, resident of Hira Chowk, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- Proprietor of the New Style Mobiles, Opposite Bus Stand, Puran Market, Gali No. 1, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
- Proprietor of Jai Shree Ram Mobiles, Near Bus Stand, opposite of Bank of India, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
Ops are exparte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
Brief facts of the present complaint are that on 05.09.2013 he had purchased a mobile set Model No. A-6 bearing IMEI No. 911304154266104 for a sum of Rs. 5400/- with one year warranty from OP no. 1 vide bill no. 320 dated 05.09.2013. It is alleged that after purchasing of above said mobile set, it worked till the first week October 2013 after that the abovesaid mobile set became completely dead due to some manufacturing defect. It is alleged that the complainant many times made request to the OP no. 1 to get repair the same and he sent the mobile set of the complainant to OP no. 2 on dated 19.10.2013. It is alleged that on dated 21.10.2013, the complainant visited in the shop of OP no. 2, he made endorsement in receipt book and demanded a sum of Rs. 1500/- from the complainant. The complainant served a legal notice through registered post to the Ops on dated 24.10.2014 but no reply was given. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the Ops he has to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he has to file the present complaint & prayed for new mobile set in place of old set alongwith compensation. Hence the complainant was deprived of use of the Hand Set and suffered a loss.
2. OPs no. 1 & 2 have failed to come present. Hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21.12.2015.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence document Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-4 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile handset in question from OP no. 1 on 05.09.2013 for Rs. 5,400/- vide bill Annexure C-1. The complainant approached OP no. 2 for the repair of his mobile handset vide job sheet dated 21.10.2013. He further submitted that the OP no. 2 cannot claim any charges on account of repairs, because the mobile handset became defective within the period of warranty of one year. The mobile handset in question is lying with OP no. 2.
5. We have perused the material on record. The mobile handset in question was deposited by the complainant with OP no. 2 vide job sheet Annexure C-2 with certain defects. The mobile handset in question became defective within 2 months from the date of the purchase. Therefore, the OP no. 2 was liable to rectify the defects of the mobile handset within the warranty period, free of cost. Considering the facts of the case, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to pay Rs. 5400/- of the mobile handset to the complainant, jointly and severally. This order be complied with by the Ops within 60 days from the date of passing of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 26.07.2016. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta) (Sudesh)
Member Member
