BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.405 of 2016

Date of Instt. 20.09.2016

Date of Decision: 01.03.2017

Gaurav Chhabra S/o Sh. Jagdish Chander Chhabra, 4D, Gobind Nagar, Basti Guzan, Jalandhar, Punjab-144001

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Sehaj Tele Care, Ist Floor, Gulati Complex, Near DLF Mall, Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar.

2. Micromax Informatics Limited, Block A, Plot No.21/14, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110028.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 Exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint filed by the complainant Gaurav Chhabra, wherein alleged that he purchased a mobile set model No.A-107 for a sum of Rs.6800/- vide bill No.391 dated 24.08.2015 from Sehaj Mobile House, Jalandhar but after some time the mobile set started giving problem i.e. display problem and accordingly he approached to the service centre i.e. OP No.1 and deposited the mobile set but the mobile set was not repaired and returned to the complainant, rather an other mobile set having model No.A-290 was tried to handover the complainant but he refused to get the said mobile and he demanded the same model from OP No.1 but despite repeated request through E-mail, the mobile set has not been returned to the complainant and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the opposite parties be directed to return the mobile set having model No.A-107 or to return the price of the mobile set alongwith compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.15,000/- in total.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties but despite service, opposite party No. 1 and 2 did not come present and ultimately, opposite party No.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte.

3. In order to prove his exparte claim, complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith some documents Ex.C2 to C7 and closed his exparte evidence.

4. We have heard the complainant in person and also gone through the file very minutely.

5. After considering the over all circumstances as elaborated in the complaint or put before us by the complainant, it reveals that the factum in regard to purchase the mobile set having model No.A-107 for Rs.6800/- is not in dispute rather it is established by the complainant, placing on file invoice Ex.C2 and further the defect occurred in the mobile set is also established from the job sheet Ex.C7 which also shows that the mobile was handover to OP No.1 on 20.07.2016 thereafter the complainant gave repeated requests through email which are Ex.C3 to Ex.C6 despite that the mobile set after repairing has not been returned to the complainant rather the same is yet with the OP No.1. So, it is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

6. In the light of above detailed discussion, we find that the case of the complainant is un-rebutted and un-challenged because the OPs did not bother to appear despite service and as such we reached to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to relief and the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and opposite parties are directed to return the mobile set having same model i.e. A-107 after repairing the same within one month from the date of receipt of copy of order and further opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs.3000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.1000/- and accordingly this complaint stands disposed off. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

7. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

01.03.2017 Member President