Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/277

Mandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shiv Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

09 Feb 2016

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Patiala
Patiala
 
Complaint Case No. CC/15/277
 
1. Mandeep Singh
s/o Ajaib singh r/o H.No.74 St.o.4 Sukhdev Nagar Siona Road Patiala
patiala
punjab
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Shiv Telecom
Sirhindi Gate patiala
Patiala
punjab
2. 2. Expert Comunication
Sheran Wala Gate Patiala
patiala
punjab
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Sh. Ajitpal Singh Rajput PRESIDENT
  Smt. Neelam Gupta Member
  Smt. Sonia Bansal MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Inperson, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

Complaint No. CC/15/277 of 24.11.2015

Decided on 09/02/2016

 

Mandeep Singh son of Sh. Ajmer Singh, Resident of H. No.74, Gali no.4, Sukhdev Nagar, Seona Road, Patiala. ….Complainant.

Versus

 

1. Shiv Telecom, Sirhindi Gate, Patiala.

2. Expert Communication, Sheranwala Gate, Patiala.

….Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the

Consumer Protection Act.

 

QUORUM

Sh. A. P. S. Rajput, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

Smt. Sonia Bansal, Member

Present:

For Complainant : In person.

For Opposite party no. 2 : Ex-parte

 

ORDER

NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER:

1. The complainant had purchased one mobile phone make Samsung Galaxy Core-2 from opposite party (here and after referred as OP) OP no.1 for an amount of Rs.8000/- on 25/2/2015. It is averred that after some time, camera of the mobile phone became defective and the complainant approached OP no.2, the same being the authorized service centre of the company. The complainant approached OP no.2 on 05/11/2015 and deposited the mobile phone with it. After harassing the complainant for 15 days, OP no.2 returned the mobile phone to the complainant on 19/11/2015 by saying that they could not rectify the defect. The complainant requested OP no.2 to rectify the problem as the mobile phone was within warranty period but the OP failed to do the needful. As such the complainant suffered mentally, physically as well as economically. At last he approached this forum u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ( for short the Act).

2. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against OP no.2 only, who failed to appear despite service and was thus proceeded against ex-parte.

3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his sworn affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and he closed the evidence.

4. The complainant failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the complainant in person and gone through the evidence placed on record.

5. Ex.C-2 is the copy of the invoice whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone from OP no.1 on 25/02/2015 for an amount of Rs.8000/-. Ex.C-1 is the copy of the job sheet whereby the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP no.2 on 05/11/2015. As per the job sheet OP no.2 provided a stand by mobile hand set to the complainant. Today during the course of arguments, the complainant told that the standby mobile hand set was also not functioning and after two days, he returned that standby set to OP no.2. Thereafter, the complainant approached OP no.2 several times and every time OP kept on lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other.

6. The complainant argued that the defect in the camera of the mobile phone was rectified but OP no.2 told the complainant that some other problem had cropped up in the mother board of the mobile phone, which could not be rectified. Ultimately on 19/11/2015, OP no.2 returned the mobile phone to the complainant saying that the problem in the mobile phone could not be rectified. Here in this case, the defect in the mobile phone occurred during warranty period and OP was bound to rectify the same but it failed to do so and it amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Moreover, failure on the part of OP to contest the claim of the complainant would go to show the indifferent attitude of the OP to redress the grievance of the complainant.

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to OP no.2 to rectify the defect in the mobile phone upto the satisfaction of the complainant and if that is not possible, to replace it with a new one of the same make with requisite warranty and if that is not possible to refund an amount of Rs.8000/- i.e. the price of the mobile phone. OP no.2 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant, which is inclusive of the cost of litigation. Order be complied by Opposite party no.2 within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order.

Pronounced

Dated:09/02/2016

 

Sonia Bansal  A. P. S. Rajput   Neelam Gupta

Member          President            Member

 
 
[ Sh. Ajitpal Singh Rajput]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Smt. Neelam Gupta]
Member
 
[ Smt. Sonia Bansal]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.