Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/51/2014

Raju B Porwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Praveen Jain - Opp.Party(s)

S L Patil

18 May 2015

ORDER

(Order dictated by Shri. V.S. Gotakhindi, Member)

ORDER

          U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging sale of defective mobile hand set.

          2) O.Ps. in-spite of service of notices, have remained exparte.

          3) In support of the claim of the complaint, the complainant has filed affidavit and produced some documents.

4) We have heard the arguments of the complainant and have perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved sale of defective mobile hand set by the O.Ps. as well as deficiency in service and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?

          6) Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative, for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

            7) The complainant has claimed that he purchased Micromax A100 mobile from the O.P. No.1dealer for a sum of Rs.10,500/- on 5/10/2012 bearing Bill No. 14474. In the month of January 2013 the said hand set has started giving problems regarding phone hang. The complainant brought the said problem to the notice of O.P.1. The complainant contending in his complaint that in order to repair the cell phone approached O.P.1 for repairs and O.P.1 retained on 7/1/2013 for 6 days on 26/1/2013 for 15 days on 23/5/2013 for 2 days on 28/5/2013 for 3 days on 5/6/2013 for 47 days. The complainant further submit that the O.p.1 sent the handset the O.p.2 and accordingly the O.P.2 issued service job sheet bearing No. 1176 on 5/8/2013 in favour of the complainant. The complainant further submits that the cell phone was handed over to O.P.1 and 2 for repairs within warranty and also issued registered notice O.p.1 to 4 on 19/11/2013 but the O.Ps. did not repair nor paid the price of the cell phone. Inspite of notice served the O.Ps. did not reply to the legal notice, hence the complainant constrained to filed this complaint.  

          8) The O.Ps. No.1 to 4 though notice was served to them issued from the forum did not appeared. Hence, the both the O.Ps. placed exparte. We have heard the argument submitted by the complainant and the prayer made by the complainant that he has suffered mental harassment and monitory loss. The O.Ps. No.1 and 2 have failed to hand over the mobile handset to the complainant with repair and that the mobile handset is still lying with O.Ps. No.2 service centre from 05/8/2013.  The complainant has produced the original job sheet wherein the fault mentioned and reported by the complainant was phone hangs. The complainant also produced the original cash/credit tax invoice bearing No.14474 for an amount of Rs.10,500/- purchased from O.P.1. The complainant has produced a copy of job sheet dated 12/6/2013 and 17/8/2013 wherein the O.P. at column “Symptom” it has been mentioned as power phone locks up not responding battery no charging etc., respectively. On these days the complainant has handed over the cell phone by hand for repairs for which the job sheets are being issued. It is from the allegations of the complainant that the cell phone is retained with the O.P. No.2 from the date of its service. The point to be noted herein that to defend the allegations of the complainant no O.Ps. appeared before the forum and remained exparte. Hence, we have arrived at the conclusion that the complainant has proved is case and the prayer of the complainant to direct the O.Ps. to pay the price of the cell phone is just and proper and also looking to the negligence of the O.Ps. in not attending to the request of the complainant to repair the handset and upon that the retaining the handset without repair itself is, the deficiency of service of the O.Ps. and also unfair trade practice of the O.Ps.

          9) Accordingly, following order.

ORDER

          Complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.Ps. are hereby directed to pay the cost of the handset of Rs.10,500/- as per the invoice within one month from the date of the order with interest at the rate of 8% P.A. from 5/8/2013 to the complainant. If the O.Ps. fail to pay the cost of the handset of Rs.10,500/- within stipulated period with interest, the O.Ps. shall pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant.

So also, The O.Ps. are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

          (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 18^th May 2015)

            Member                       Member                         President.

gm*