Haryana

Jind

83/14

Dinesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sai Kirpa Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Rakesh Kumar Jangra

05 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.

                                           Complaint No. 83 of 2014

   Date of Institution: 18.7.2014

   Date of final order: 5.4.2016

 

Dinesh Kumar s/o Prem Cand r/o Professor gali, Narwana, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind.

                                                             ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

1. Sai Kripa Mobile & repair 33, Huda Market Narwana, District Jind.
2. M/s Sonu Mobile shop, care centre, shop No.9(basement) near Bharat Cinema, Jhanj gate, Batra shopping complex Jind through its Prop./Partner.
3. Micromax house, 90-B, sector 18 Gurgaon-122015 through its Chairman/M.D.

 

…..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of

 

Before: Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Presiding Member.

            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.   

 

Present:  Sh. Rakesh Jangra Adv. for complainant.

              Opposite party No.1 given up.    

              Sh. Abhishek Singla Adv. for OP No.3

               (defence already struck-off)

              Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte.

            

ORDER:

 

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased  Micromax Mobile set for a sum of Rs.13,200/- vide bill No.129 dated 7.6.2013 from opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 has given one year full guarantee/warranty of the above mobile

                Dinesh Kumar Vs. Sai Kripa Mobile etc.

                                    …2…   

set. The mobile was defective from the very beginning and there was a charging, heating problems and ringer of the phone was also not working properly. The complainant visited the shop of opposite party No.1 and requested to replace the mobile set but the opposite party No.1 refused to replace the same. Thereafter, the complainant visited the care centre of opposite party No.2 several times for removing the defect of the mobile set  but the defect of the mobile set was not removed by the opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 stated that there was a manufacturing defect. The mobile set is still lying with the opposite parties and the same is not repair/replace or handed over to the complainant.  Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to replace the mobile set with new one or to pay the cost of mobile set i.e. Rs.13,200/- as well as to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant.

2.     Notice issued to opposite party No.2 received back served but none has come present on behalf of opposite party No.2. Hence, the opposite party No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 27.8.2014.

3.     Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared and filed the written statement stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the present complaint and this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. On merits, it is contended that the answering

                Dinesh Kumar Vs. Sai Kripa Mobile etc.

                                    …3…   

opposite party purchased the above said mobile set from Amit Wadhwa who is wholesale supplier and he visited at the shop of answering opposite party and has stolen the said bill No.129 from his bill book. The Amit Wadhwa is friend of complainant and he has given the said bill No.129 to the complainant which is not signed by the complainant and the complainant has misused the said bill. The opposite party No.1 was given up by the complainant vide order of this Forum dated 16.3.2016.

4.     In  evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of order dated 4.6.2014 Ex. C-2, copy of cash memo Ex. C-3, copy of document Ex. C-4 and postal receipt ex. C-5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 has produced the affidavit of Ashwani Kumar Ex. OP-1 and  copies of cash memos Ex. OP-2 to OP-6 and closed the evidence. 

5.     We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsel of the complainant and perused the record placed on file. The opposite parties No.2 is already ex-parte, the defence of opposite party No.3 has been struck off and opposite party No.1 has been given up. The complainant purchased a Micromax mobile phone model A-116 from opposite party No.1 by paying an amount of Rs.13,200/-. Just after the purchase, the mobile phone started giving problems of overheating and ringer etc. The complainant approached to the authorized service centre and after repair the mobile phone was handed over to the complainant. After some time the mobile phone again started giving the same problem. The complainant again contacted the authorized service centre for the

                Dinesh Kumar Vs. Sai Kripa Mobile etc.

                                    …4…   

repair of the mobile phone and handed over the set for its repair. The mobile phone is still lying with the opposite parties unrepaired and not in working condition. The opposite parties have not shown any interest for the repair of the mobile phone.

6.     We are of the considered view that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is allowed in the interest of justice and the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.13,200/-(Rs.thirteen thousands and two hundred only) which is cost of the mobile phone to the complainant. The opposite parties will bear their own litigation expenses. The order be complianced within one month from the date of orders. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.

Announced on: 5.4.2016

                                                           Presiding Member,

 Member                                        District Consumer Disputes                                                               Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                Dinesh Kumar Vs. Sai Kripa Mobile etc.

                               

Present:  Sh. Rakesh Jangra Adv. for complainant.

              Opposite party No.1 given up.    

              Sh. Abhishek Singla Adv. for OP No.3

               (defence already struck-off)

              Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte.

 

             Arguments heard. To come up on 5.4.2016 for orders.

                                                           Presiding Member,

                Member                                  DCDRF, Jind

                                                                30.3.2016

 

Present:  Sh. Rakesh Jangra Adv. for complainant.

              Opposite party No.1 given up.    

              Sh. Abhishek Singla Adv. for OP No.3

               (defence already struck-off)

              Opposite party No.2 already ex-parte.

 

             Order announced, vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

                                                            Presiding Member,

                Member                                  DCDRF, Jind

                                                                 5.4.2016