Haryana

Jind

CC/16/68

Wazir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Om Sai Communication Op1 And Dev Mobile Op2 And Managing Director Op3 - Opp.Party(s)

03 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 70 of 2016
   Date of Institution: 1.6.2016
   Date of final order: 4.8.2016 

Wazir Singh aged 45 (Narnoundia) son of Sh. Dharam Singh r/o H.No.2900 Urban Estate, Jind, Tehsil and District Jind. 

                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
Om Sai Communication, Ashri Gate, Jind.
Dev Mobile shop No.43 Opp. Reliance Web World HUDA Complex Jind (HR). 
Managing Director Zen Mobile, SCO 66 near DC Modal School, Sector-7, Panchkula 134109.
                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
    Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. Wazir Singh complainant in person.
              Opposite parties already ex-parte. 

ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased Zen 71 mobile set  for a sum of Rs.1450/- vide  bill No.3835 dated 1.6.2015 from opposite party No.1, which is manufactured by opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.2 is service provider. The opposite party No.1 had given one year guarantee of the above said mobile set. After using 15 days, the above said mobile set stopped working.  The complainant  approached with 
            Wazir Singh Vs. Om Sai etc.
                    …2…
opposite party No.1 and told  that mobile is not working, the opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to get remove the defect from opposite party No.2 i.e. service centre. The opposite party had taken the mobile set on 17.6.2015 and  returned the same after repairing at about 50 days. But again the mobile set was not working properly and giving the problems. Thereafter, complainant   visited the service center of opposite party No.2 several times  for removing the defect of the mobile set but the  opposite party No.2 did not remove the defects of the mobile set of the complainant.  Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to  replace the defective  mobile with new one. It is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony  as well as to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. 
2.    The opposite parties were proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 12.7.2016. 
3.    In   ex-parte evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Annexure C-1, copy of  cash memo Annexure C-2 and copies of  job sheet  Annexure C-3 to Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence. 
4.    We have heard the complainant in person  and perused the record placed on file. The complainant has purchased the mobile phone against a sum of Rs.1450/- on 1.6.2015 from opposite party No.1. The complainant argued that after 15 days of its purchase the mobile had stopped working. It is further argued that he visited the opposite parties several times for removing the defect of the mobile set but the 
            Wazir Singh Vs. Om Sai etc.
                    …3…

opposite parties have not removed the same and prayed to allow the complaint. The opposite parties were proceeded against ex-parte. 
5.    We have gone through the record, it is clear that the complainant had purchased  the mobile set  vide cash memo Annexure C-2 dated 1.6.2015 for Rs.1450/- and mobile in question become defective and he approached to the opposite party No.2 i.e. service centre and  they have issued the job card vide Annexure C-4 dated 12.3.2015 but the  mobile set has not been rectified by the opposite party No.2. He again visited on 17.6.2015 and 28.1.2016 As Annexure C-3 and Annexure C-5 but the opposite parties did not remove the defect of the mobile set as mentioned in the above job sheets. The mobile in question became defective within warranty period and complainant has also filed the complaint within time.  In this regard the complainant has also filed the affidavit, the evidence  adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted because  opposite parties did not turn up to controvert the version of the complainant.
6.    In view of above discussion, we have no hesitation to allow this complaint. Hence, the complaint is allowed with cost and opposite parties are directed to  replace the mobile in question of the complainant with a new one of same model  having same price and if the same model is not available then  opposite parties will  refund the cost of mobile. The order be complianced within 30 days , failing which the opposite parties are directed pay a simple interest@9% p.a. from the date of  filing of the complaint i.e. 1.6.2016 till its final realization.  We assessed as Rs. 1100/-(Rs. eleven hundred only) as litigation 
            Wazir Singh Vs. Om Sai etc.
                    …4…
expenses to the  complainant.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.
Announced on: 4.8.2016

                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

            Wazir Singh Vs. Om Sai etc.
                    

Present:  Sh. Wazir Singh complainant in person.
              Opposite parties already ex-parte. 

              Arguments heard. To come up on 4.8.2016 for orders. 
                                    President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  3.8.2016

Present:  Sh. Wazir Singh complainant in person.
              Opposite parties already ex-parte. 

         Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                          President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  4.8.2016