Haryana

Karnal

CC/716/2021

Parveen Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Jio Store - Opp.Party(s)

R.K. Arora

09 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 716 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.24.12.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:09.12.2022

 

Parveen Kumar son of Shri Devi Dayal, resident of Nilokheri, District Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Reliance Jio Store Sector-7, Urban Estate, Karnal, through its proprietor.

 

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Shri R.K. Arora, counsel for the complainant.

                    Opposite Party exparte.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                  The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant has purchased one Reliance Jio Model F320B, IMEI no.351486164427888, mobile no.8168313847 from OP on dated 04.06.2021 for a sum of Rs.2200/- whereas the actual value of the said mobile is Rs.2000/-at the time the OP assured that he would sent the bill of the aforesaid mobile on the email of complainant which was generated by the OP. The warrantee of the said mobile is for 2 years. Thereafter, complainant contacted the OP several times and requested to issue the bill of the aforesaid mobile, but OP did not issue the bill. OP has issued the abovesaid mobile of used number by someone and old series and in this regard the OP has not disclosed to the complainant and the person who are contacted in aforesaid number, used to make the telephonic call to the complainant and harassed unnecessarily whereas the complainant  has no concern with that person. It is further averred that the battery of the said mobile is zero  because the said mobile became switched off within one hour without use. This fact is clearly proved that the OP had sold away the defective mobile set to the complainant. The complainant approached the OP several times and requested to replace the said defective mobile set but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. Then complainant served a legal notice dated 25.06.2021 upon the OP but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP did not appear and proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 14.03.2022 of the Commission.

3.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Pooja Ex.CW1/B, copy of jio phone catalogue Ex.C1 and Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipt Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 25.11.2022 by suffering separate statement.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the evidence available on file carefully.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that on 04.06.2021 complainant has purchased one mobile from OP for a sum of Rs.2200/- but OP did not issue the bill. Complainant contacted the OP several times and requested to issue the bill, but OP did not issue the bill..He further argued that the battery of the said mobile is defective. The OP has sold the defective mobile set to the complainant. The complainant approached the OP several times and requested to replace the said defective mobile set but OPs failed to do so and prayed for allowing the complaint.

6.             To prove his version, complainant has placed on file his complainant Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Pooja Ex.CW1/B, copy of jio phone catalogue Ex.C1 and Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipt Ex.C4. To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant, OP did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Thus, the evidence produced by the complainant is unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Thus, it is well proved that OP has sold the defective mobile set to the complainant. Hence, the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

7.             Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to remove the defect from the mobile set in question, if it is not repairable then to replace the defective mobile set with new one. We further direct the OP to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and for litigation expenses to the complainant. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Dated:09.12.2022                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member                    Member

 

 

Sushma

Stenographer