Haryana

Ambala

CC/371/2016

Mustak Ahmad - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.K. Malik Proprietor of Malik Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Yadvinder Gupta

19 Dec 2016

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 371 of 2016

                                                          Date of Institution         : 29.09.2016

                                                          Date of decision   : 19.12.2016

 

          Mustak Ahmad son of Asgar resident of house number 95, Hira Nagar,   Ambala City.  

……. Complainant.

1. Sh. S.K. Malik Proprietor of Malik Electronic, Chownk Kotwali Bazar, Ambala City.
2. Excellent Gallery, Shop NO. 2, SAdar Bazar, Post Office Lane, Ambala Cantt. Ambala (Authorized Samsung Mobile service Centre in Ambala).

 ….…. Respondents.

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                          

 

 

Present:       Sh. Yadwinder Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

                   OPs already proceeded exparte v.o.d. 23.11.2016.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone model no. Samsung J2 for Rs. 8600/- from OP no. 1 vide bill No. 29049 dated 21.11.2015 and OP No. 1 also issued Syska Gadget Secure (Insurance Policy) on payment of Rs. 500/- bearing scratch code no. 16531071 and serial no. SGI 799-71343228. The mobile phone started giving problems from its very beginning i.e. disturbance/listening problem in the said mobile set of the complainant in incoming call. So, the complainant got checked the mobile set from OP no. 1 who deposited the mobile phone and assured that in terms of warranty the services would be provided free of cost as per scheme of the concerned company i.e. OP No. 2 but the OP no. 1 failed to discharge his duties and returned mobile set on 11.09.2016 with a broken screen. Further submitted that the complainant objected unfair trade practice, OP abused the complainant in filthy language and even threatened with life at his shop on 11.09.2016 and the matter was brought into the notice of local police on the same day to initiate criminal action against OP no. 1. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Registered notice issued to Ops but none have turned up on their behalf and they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.11.2016.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-4 and close his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file. The case of complainant is that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone model no. Samsung J2 for Rs. 8600/- Annexure C-1 from OP no. 1 vide bill No. 29049 dated 21.11.2015 and OP No. 1 also issued Syska Gadget Secure (Insurance Policy) on payment of Rs. 500/- bearing scratch code no. 16531071 and serial no. SGI 799-71343228 which was having warranty started giving problems i.e. disturbance/listening problem in incoming call.   Perusal of document Annexure C-1 reveals that the mobile set has warranty which says that “We hereby certify that good (if any) mentioned in this bill are warranted to be of the nature and quality which they purport to be: This guarantee is issued on behalf to the warranty in respect of these goods if given by the manufactures. Warranty has been provided by Service Centre on new sets. The version of complainant duly supported by his affidavit reveals that the mobile in question started giving problems like disturbance/listening problem in incoming call within its warranty period inspite of various visits by complainant thus the OPs are negligent in rectifying the problems of mobile set. Since, the problem of the mobile set could not be rectified by the OP No. 2 despite repair, as such it is presumed that the mobile set in question is having some manufacturing defect. The Ops despite registered notice not pursued the case and they were proceeded against exparte. As such, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and thus we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant.

5.                In view of above discussion, the present complaint is hereby allowed with costs and Ops are directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To replace the Mobile set in question with a new one of the same model. If the same model is not available then to refund the cost of mobile set to the tune of Rs.8600/- as per Annexure C-1 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.

 (ii)    Also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation.

                   Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :19.12.2016                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                    (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                        Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member