Haryana

Kurukshetra

115/2017

Karanpal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pankaj Dhiman - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

27 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no.115/17.

Date of instt. 7.6.17. 

                                              Date of Decision: 27.2.18.

 

Karan Pal son of Ami Chand, resident of village Kishanpura, post office Pipli, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                        ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. Pankaj Dhiman,         SCO 1334, Uttam Market, Post Office Street, Mohan Nagar, Kurukshetra.
2. Shreyash Retail Private Limited E-29, Ring Road South Ex-II, Opposite Park, New Delhi.
3. Flip Kart Internet Private Limited, Vaishnavi Summit No.6/D, 7^th Main 80 Feet Road, 3^rd Block, Koramangala Banglore-560034.
4. Lenova India Private Limited Vatika Business Park, 1^st Floor, Tower-A Sohna Road, New Omex Mall, Sector-49, Gurgaon.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

 

Before               Sh. G.C. Garg, President.    

Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Member

       

Present:         Complainant in person.

                    Defense of OP No.1 struck off.

Sh. Shekhar Kapoor, Adv. for OPs No.2&3.

 Op No.4 ex parte.

 

           

ORDER

                                                                         

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Karan Pal against Pankaj Dhiman and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that on 12.10.2016 the complainant purchased a hand set for a sum of Rs.8499/- through online with a warranty of twelve months but the hand set became out of order within a period of six months and the complainant made a complaint to Op No.1 and who asked to visit after 20 days and the hand set will be returned with OK condition. After some time the complainant visited the office of OP No.1 and requested to deliver the hand set and the OP No.1 delivered the hand set but when the complainant checked the hand set, there was same problem which could not be rectified. The complainant visited the office of OP No.1 several times to remove the defects in the hand set but the OP No.1 has failed to remove the same. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to replace the hand with new one and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.

3.             Upon notice Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 appeared contested the complaint by way of filing written statement taking preliminary objections that the complainant has suppressed the true and material facts from this Forum; that the answering OP is not engaged in sale of any goods manufactured or produce by its own; that the answering OP is not manufacturer of the product sold to the complainant and has no facility or knowledge to ascertain whether the product in issue in the present complaint is defective or has manufacturing defects.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objections were reiterated and prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.            Service of OP No.1 was not effected for want of correct address. So, the defense of OP No.1 was struck off vide order dated 27.2.2018.

5.            OP No.4 has failed to come present and as such, he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 17.10.2017.

6.            Both the parties have led their respective evidence to prove their version.

7.             We have heard learned counsel parties and have gone through the record carefully.

8.            From the cash memo, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 12.10.2016 for the sale consideration of Rs.84,99/-. It is alleged in the complaint that the unit became defective after six months of its purchase i.e. within the warranty/guarantee period. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced from Op No.4, who is manufacture of the unit in question.

9.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OP No.4 to replace the hand set of the complainant with new one of the same model.  The complainant is directed deposit the old hand set along with bill and accessories with the service center of the company. The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.4.  File be consigned to record after due compliance.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties.  

Announced:

Dated :27.2.2018                                (G.C.Garg)

                                                  President,

                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                       Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra.

 

 

       

(Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta) 

        Member