BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.285/15.

Date of instt.: 27.11.2015.

                                                        Date of Decision: 22.01.2016.

Rakesh son of Chandi Ram, resident of Village Khurana, Tehsil & District Kaithal.

                                                                ……….Complainant.                               Versus

Sandeep Jain, Shop No.B-101, Ist Floor, Rattan Heights Co-op. HSGSOC, Lamington Road, Dr. D.B.Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008.

..………OP.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before           Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.

                        Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :       Sh. Vikram Singh Turan, Advocate for complainant.

                        Op already exparte.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER).

                    The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a mobile P Code-124 from the Op online for a sum of Rs.3798/- vide cash memo No.E-0249 dt. 26.10.2015 against the warranty of one year and paid Rs.3798/- at Village Khurana, Distt. Kaithal. It is alleged that prior to send the present mobile set, the Op No.1 asked the complainant to supply the mobile set of Tata Company but at the time of delivery, the Op delivered the mobile set of Chinese online to the complainant.  It is further alleged that after purchase of above-said mobile, the mobile set was not working properly and the touch of the said mobile set was not working and absolutely dead the said mobile set.  This way, the Op is deficient in service and adopting unfair trade practice.  Hence, this complaint is filed.  

2.     Upon notice, the Op did not appear and was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 11.01.2016.

3.     The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and document Ex.C1 and closed evidence on 19.01.2016.   

4.     We have heard the ld. counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint.  He stated that the complainant purchased a mobile P Code-124 from the Op online for a sum of Rs.3798/- vide cash memo No.E-0249 dt. 26.10.2015 against the warranty of one year and paid Rs.3798/- at Village Khurana, Distt. Kaithal.  He further stated that prior to send the present mobile set, the Op No.1 asked the complainant to supply the mobile set of Tata Company but at the time of delivery, the Op delivered the mobile set of Chinese online to the complainant.  He further stated that after purchase of above-said mobile, the mobile set was not working properly and the touch of the said mobile set was not working and the said mobile set became absolutely dead.  The complainant has also tendered in evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill, Mark-CA and copy of e-mail sent by the Op to the complainant, Ex.C1.  In the said e-mail, Ex.C1, the Op has stated that “I would like to inform you that there is no doubt that my company has received a letter from your side about your dis- likeness about the product received to you with this you even mentioned that after registration of your complaint to our customer care department, no response was given to you as-well-as your call was been disconnected several times from our customer care. 

        It is also noticed that the product code 124 for which you order for had its cleared specifications mentioned in the add itself as well QS Hot Deals is an online shopping centre and is believed in providing 100% satisfaction to the customers with this we give 6 months warranty to the customers on purchase of any goods.  But if at all we come into notice of customers dis-satisfaction we straight away do replacement or cash back for the customers”.

So, in view of said e-mail, it is crystal clear that the Op sold the defective mobile set to the complainant.  Whereas, on the other hand, the Op did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte.  So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged.  So, we are of the considered view that the Op is deficient while rendering services to the complainant.         

6.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint exparte and direct the Op to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant vide memo No.E-249 dt. 26.10.2015.  However, it is made clear that if the said mobile as purchased by the complainant,  is not available with the Op, then the Op shall refund Rs.3798/- as the cost of mobile to the complainant.   The Op is also burdened with cost of Rs.1100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges to the complainant.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of order.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.22.01.2016.

                                                                (Jagmal Singh),

                                                                President.

                (Harisha Mehta),   (Rajbir Singh), 

                        Member.       Member.