BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.157 of 2017
Date of Institution: 11.7.2017
Date of Decision: 11.10.2017
Happy (aged about 23 years) son of Sh. Balvinder Kumar, resident of Kalyan Nagar, Gali No.5, Begu Road, Sirsa (Mobile No.99924-80994).
………Complainant.
Versus
1. PNR LLP, Shed No.130-A, Bommasandra Phase-3, Jigani Link Road, Bangalore- 560105, Karnataka through its Manager/ Authorized signatory.
2. M/s Shree Communication, Jain Market, Sadar Bazar, Near Masjid, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa through its Proprietor/ Authorized signatory.
3. YU Televentures Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.21/14, Block-A, Naraina, Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi, through its Managing Director.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT………………… MEMBER
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Abhimanyu authorized person on behalf of complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a Yu Yuphoria Mobile Model Yu5010A (Champagne Gold) from opposite party no.1 vide invoice no.KA-QSBB-170917741-41762 dated 31.8.2016 for a sum of Rs.5499/- in his name through Amazon.in vide order ID 404-1616129-9162704 and the cost of the mobile was paid by him through online payment and thereafter the said mobile was delivered to the complainant at Sirsa in the month of September, 2016 with guarantee of one year. The op no.1 is the authorized dealer of Yuphoria, op no.2 is care/ service centre and op no.3 is manufacturer. It is further averred that after purchase of the mobile, the complainant was stunned to see the problems in the display and touch screen of the mobile as it was not working properly due to which the complainant could not use the said mobile in his daily use. The complainant approached op no.2 and disclosed such problems occurred in the mobile to op no.2 on 9.6.2017 and handed over the mobile to op no.2 for removing the above said problems. The op no.2 assured the complainant that the said mobile will be repaired within a week under warranty and that if the problem could not be removed, then the said mobile will be exchanged with new one. It was also admitted by op no.2 that there is manufacturing defect in the said mobile handset which will be removed or the mobile will be replaced by the company at their own cost. Accordingly, the complainant visited the service centre of op no.2 after a week but at that time complainant was given further period of a week by op no.2 and in this way the op no.2 has postponed the matter on one pretext or the other but the above mobile handset of complainant was not given to the complainant by op no.2 till today despite his repeated visits. Since then the grievance of the complainant has not been redressed by ops despite his repeated requests. That due to act and conduct of the ops, the complainant has suffered a lot of harassment and mental tension. Hence, this complaint.
2. Opposite party no.1 refused to accept the notice and Op no.3 did not appear despite notice sent through registered post and therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.
3. Opposite party no.2 appeared through counsel but did not file any written statement despite availing several opportunities including last opportunity and ultimately ld. counsel for complainant suffered a statement on 10.10.2017 in which, he has stated that he has not received instruction to proceed further with the present complaint nor he has received the written statement duly signed by authorized signatory of op no.2 despite the fact that he has already informed op no.2 regarding last opportunity for filing written statement and that he has no objection in case op no.2 is proceeded against exparte. Since no other authorised agent appeared on behalf of op no.2, therefore, op no.2 was proceeded against exparte.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, copy of invoice Ex.C2, copy of job sheet dated 9.6.2017 Ex.C3 and copy of adhar card Ex.C4.
5. We have heard authorized person on behalf of complainant and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit as Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 from which it is proved on record that complainant purchased the mobile in question for a sum of Rs.5499/- through online from opposite party no.1 which was delivered to him at his address at Sirsa vide invoice Ex.C2. Since the opposite parties No.1 to 3 did not come forward to contest the complaint and even opposite party no.2 after appearance did not file any written statement and ultimately opted to be proceeded against exparte, the pleadings and evidence led by complainant goes as unchallenged and unrebutted. Therefore, the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of ops and the complainant deserves to be allowed.
7. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties either to replace the mobile in question with a new one of same make and model without any cost from complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Besides above, the ops are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. The mobile in question is already with op no.2 and it will be the prime duty of the op no.2 i.e. local care centre of the company to get this order fully complied from other ops besides its own liability. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:11.10.2017. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
