DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: 300/2015
Date of Institution: 04.08.2015
Date of Decision: 02.11.2015
Raj Kumar son of Sia Ram resident of Barnala C/o Red Star Tailor Jain Market Sadar Bazar Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Sahil Mobile Hut Hanidaya Bazar Barnala, through its authorized person/signatory.
2. Custom Care Centre of Micro Max Mobile Barnala Shop No. 25 SD Sabha Complex Handiaya Bazar Barnala, through its authorized signatory.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. D.R. Jindal counsel for the complainant
Opposite parties exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(BY SHRI S.K. GOEL, PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Raj Kumar son of Sia Ram (hereinafter referred as complainant) has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as Act) against Sahil Mobile Hut and others (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a Micro Max IMEI 9114223562384243 Mobile Set for a sum of Rs. 5,500/- from the opposite party No. 1 vide Invoice No. 028 dated 25.5.2015. It is averred that the said Mobile Set developed defect and stopped working on 30.6.2015 and the complainant brought this fact to the notice of opposite party No. 1, who told him to visit the shop of opposite party No. 2. Then he approached the opposite party No. 2 and the concern person took the Mobile Set in his custody and asked the complainant to visit after 7 days for collecting the same. It is further averred that on 8.7.2015, the complainant visited the shop of opposite party No. 2 and requested the concern person to return the Mobile Set after repair. However, the concern person asked the complainant to visit again. Thereafter, the complainant made number of visits to the shop of opposite parties to collect the Mobile Set, but all in vain. Even the complainant made call to the Call Centre No. 18605008286 and complaint No. 170715629960 was allotted to the complainant, but no action was taken. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) To handover the Mobile Set to the complainant and in case the Mobile Set is beyond repair in that event replace the same with a new one or to refund the amount of Rs. 5,500/-.
2) To pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 were duly served, but they did not appear and were proceeded against exparte.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, Invoice as Ex.C-2, copy of job sheet Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant placed on record his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1, wherein he has specifically stated that he purchased the Mobile Set in question from the opposite party No. 1 vide invoice No. 028 dated 25.5.2015 for Rs. 5,500/-. It is further stated that the said Mobile Set stopped working on 30.6.2015 and he brought this fact to the notice of opposite party No. 1, who asked him to approach the opposite party No. 2. The complainant further stated that on 30.6.2015, he approached the opposite party No. 2 and the Mobile Set was taken into custody by the opposite party No. 2 and asked him to come after 7 days. Infact the complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint. Ex.C-2 is the invoice issued by the opposite party No. 1 in favour of the complainant indicating that the complainant purchased the said Mobile Set for Rs. 5,500/- and the Warranty shown for 12 months. Ex.C-3 is the copy of job sheet showing that the touch screen of the Mobile Set was not working.
7. The evidence on the record is not rebutted and there is no evidence contrary to the evidence produced by the complainant. Therefore, the presumption of truth lies to the un-rebutted evidence of the complainant. Moreover, the Mobile Set in question became defective within warranty period.
8. As a result of the above discussion, there is a merit in the complaint of the complainant and the same is accepted and the opposite parties are directed to handover the Mobile Set in question after removing the defects to the complainant and in case the Mobile Set is beyond repair, then the same be replaced with a new one or to refund the amount of Rs. 5,500/- to the complainant. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,100/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
2nd Day of November, 2015
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
