Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1699/2015

Sushil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.S.Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.J.S.Sarao

10 Aug 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 1699                                                                                                

                                                                  Instituted on:  23.12.2015                                                                 

                                                                  Decided on:    10.08.2016

 

Sushil Kumar son of Shri Om Parkash resident of Patiala Gate, House No.409/111, Main Bazar, Sangrur Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant

       

                        Versus

 

1. S.S. Communication, Patiala Gate, Sangrur-148001 through its prop./ partner.
2. Intex Technologies (I) Ltd. D18/2, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 2, New Delhi through its M.D./ authorized signatory.
3. Nitin Communication, Opposite Bus Stand, Sangrur-148001 through its partner/ prop.   

      ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri J.S.Sarao,  Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1&2      :     Exparte                         

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.3           :     Shri Nitin Kumar in person.

 

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member       

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Sushil Kumar complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a mobile set model Aqua Style from OP No.3 for Rs.5200/- vide cash memo dated 27.10.2014 under one year warranty. From the very beginning, said mobile set started giving problems for which the complainant approached the OP No.1 who advised to approach the OP No.3. Then the complainant approached OP No.3  who kept the mobile phone  and  issued a job sheet dated 23.10.2015 and told the complainant to collect the same after ten days. The visited the office of OP No.3 but OP No.3 has not returned the said mobile set after removing the defects. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to change the mobile set in question with new one or refund the amount of Rs.5200/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase  i.e. 27.10.2014 till realization,

 

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.10000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OPs no.1&2 did not appear and as such OPs no. 1&2 were proceeded exparte on 10.02.2016. The OP No.3 Shri Nitin Kumar had appeared and filed written reply.

3.             In reply filed by OP No.3, legal objections on the grounds of maintainability, cause of action and territorial jurisdiction have been taken up. On merits, purchase of mobile set in question from OP no.1 under one year warranty  is admitted.  It is stated that the mobile set in question is giving problem due to misuse and mishandling of the complainant but the same was repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant.  The complainant intentionally handed over the mobile set to  the service centre and not received the same from the OPs. The OPs are ready to replace the mobile set  with new one of upper model i.e. Intex Acqa Young. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3.  

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed evidence. On the other hand, no evidence has been produced by the OP No.3 rather on 03.08.2016  Shri Nitin Kumar, OP No.3 had made a statement that he will replace the mobile set in dispute with new one within one month from today.

5.             Without touching the case on merits, from the perusal of the written statement filed by OP No.3 wherein OP No.3 has specifically stated that OPs are ready to replace the mobile set in question with new one of upper model i.e. Intex Acqa Young of Rs.5490/- and in view of the statement made by the OP no.3  on 03.08.2016 that he will replace the mobile set in dispute of the complainant within one month from today, we order the OP no.3 to replace the mobile set of the complainant in dispute, which is already lying with him as stated by him in the written reply, with a new one or in the alternative to pay an amount of Rs.5200/- being the price amount of  the mobile set in dispute. We further order the OP No.3 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses.

6.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                  

                 Announced

                August 10, 2016

 

 

 

  ( Sarita Garg)          (K.C.Sharma)    (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                        Member              Member                            President