Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 308.
Instituted on : 11.07.2018.
Decided on : 04.12.2018.
Himanshu s/o Sh. Mohan Gupta R/o H.No.342/7, Bara Bazar, Rohtak through his father Mohan Gupta as natural guardian R/o H.NO.342/7, Bara Bazar, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
R.Vignesh, Electronic & Gadget F(b) Wing , Sector 16A, Film city Noida-201301 (U.P). INDIA, Mobile No.9620563550, 90354339716.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT.SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant’s father in person.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party has advertised for online sale of his products i.e. hand cell mobile phone and offer to get the online mobile set amounting to Rs.12000/- Modal and Mark MI NOTE 5 PRO. That the complainant has booked one mobile on 01.06.2018 with part payment and paid amounting to Rs.6000/- to opposite party A/c No.3811870176 by paytm and part payment of Rs.6000/- was due upto receiving of the set. That 2nd booking done by the complainant on 01.06.2018 to the opposite party in the same account for 2nd mobile set with another payment of Rs.6000/-. That opposite party assured to parcel both the sets. That complainant has not received both the mobile sets till date. That complainant tried to contact the opposite parties but no call was received by the OP. That opposite party has cheated with the complainant to grab the amount of Rs.12000/-. That the act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the OP to refund the amoutn of Rs.12000/- i.e. Rs.6000/- of each mobile set alongwith compensation and cost of litigation as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party through registered post which was received back served as per delivery report. But Opposite party did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.10.2018 of this Forum.
3. Father of the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his exparte evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Perusal of the documents reveals that as per paytm payment receipts Ex.C1 and Ex.C2. An amount of Rs.6000/- each has been transferred to R. Vignesh A/c No.3811870176 for two times on 01.06.2018. As per the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant the alleged amount was transferred on account of part payment of two mobile sets worth Rs.12000/- each from the respondent but no mobile has been received by the complainant till date after payment of Rs.12000/- to the opposite party. However, opposite party did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite party has nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding defect in the mobile set stands proved.
6. Accordingly the complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party to refund the price of Rs.12000/-(Rupees twelve thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 11.07.2018 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
04.12.2018.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
……………………………….
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member
