BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 78 of 2015 Date of Institution : 21.4.2015
Date of decision : 8.11.2016
Sandeep Sharma son of Shri Om Parkash, resident of Kanganpur Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa. ……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Shree Satyam Mobiles, Authorized Company show-room, through its authorized Incharge, Near Chandan Cake House, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa.
2. Service Zone, Guru Jambheshar Market, Sirsa, through its Prop.
3. Manufacturing company of mobile model Panasonic T-40, address to be disclosed by the op no.2.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………… ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties No.1 & 2 exparte.
ORDER
Brief facts of the complaint are that on 20.10.2014, complainant had purchased a mobile set from op no.1 model Panasonic T40 for a sum of Rs.6000/- vide bill No.75486 dated 20.10.2014 with one year warranty. But after sometime, the said mobile started giving troubles such as touch problem, automatically switched off, voice problem and heat etc. and the complainant contacted the opposite parties and requested them to remove the defect. The ops had taken the mobile from him and kept the same and stated that same will be returned after removal of all the defects. Thereafter, he contacted the ops after 2-3 days and the mobile was handed over to him by ops with the assurance that defects have been removed. But to the surprise of the complainant after even one day of its repair, the same started giving same problems and the mobile was again taken by the ops. After 3-4 days when he visited to the ops for taking the mobile, the ops asked him to come after about one week. The complainant again visited the shop of ops after one week but the ops failed to redress his grievance and complainant had to take rounds at their shop for about two months and thus they have caused unnecessary harassment to the complainant. The defective mobile is still with op no.2 and ops have failed to solve the problem of complainant. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon ops on 26.3.2015 but ops refused to receive the notice. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties No.1 &2 but none appeared on their behalf despite due service and therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.
3. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, affidavit of Sushil Kumar Ex.PW1/B, copy of legal notice Ex.P1, postal receipts Ex.P2, registered cover Ex.P3, bill Ex.P4 and job sheet dated 3.2.2015 Ex.P5.
4. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. It has been established on record that complainant purchased the mobile in question from opposite party no.1 on 20.10.2014 for a sum of Rs.6000/- as is evident from bill Ex.P4. In the job sheet dated 3.2.2015 it is mentioned that touch panel faulty. According to the complainant, the mobile in question is still lying with the opposite party no.2. The contentions put forth by the complainant are unrebutted and unchallenged. Hence, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties No.1 &2 jointly and severally either to repair the mobile in question and to make it defect free without charging any amount from complainant or to replace the mobile in question with a new of same price and description within a period of one month from receipt of copy of this order. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:8.11.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
