J U D G E M E N T

             Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this case are re-capitulated as under :-

             In a nutshell, the case of the Complaint, is that, the Complainant had purchased a MTS  Mobile phone, being  MEID  No. A – 1000036 D 093 AD from the Opposite Party on 31.12.2014. But after two or three days from the purchasing of the said Mobile phone there arose the hearing problem in the same and the Complainant had duly informed the matter to the Opposite Party and requested to replace the said Mobile phone but the Opposite Party had demanded a sum of Rs. 600/- only from the Complainant for replacing the same.

              The Complainant repeatedly requested the Opposite Party for replacement of the said defective Mobile phone but the Opposite Party paid no heed to it, what amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on part of the Opposite Party and caused mental agony and harassment to the Complainant for which he had asked for compensation. Hence, this case is filed for seeking adequate redressal before this Forum. 

             Despite proper service of the notice to the Opposite Party, the concern Opposite Party never appeared before the Forum to contest the case nor he had filed any ‘Written Version’ on his behalf or through any Ld. Advocate/Representative. Thus the Opposite Party has relinquished his scope to refute the case. So, the instant case has been heard ex-parte against the Opposite Party.

                                           Points for Determination

             The point for determination in the instant case is whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the material evidences on record.

                                             Decision with Reasons

             In order to prove his allegation set forth in the complaint, the Complainant deposed in this case as sole witness by way of affidavit and also produced some documents in support of his case.

             The main allegation of the Complainant is that, the Opposite Party was/is failed to provide the proper service regarding the said defective Mobile phone/ device purchased by the Complainant.

               We have carefully considered and scrutinized the submission made before us by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant and also critically perused all the material documents on record.   

             On overall evaluation of the argument advanced by the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant, and on critical appreciation of the case record, it is clearly evident that the Complainant had purchased a MTS  Mobile phone, being  MEID  No. A–1000036 D 093 AD from the Opposite Party on 31.12.2014 by paying the entire cost of Rs. 1,249/- only to the Opposite Party which is evident from the photocopies of the documents filed by the Complainant.      

              The record reveals that the Complainant alleged that after two or three days from the purchasing of the said device/Mobile phone the said device has arose the hearing problem for which immediately the Complainant had informed the matter to the Opposite Party and requested to replace the said device/Mobile phone by a new one which might be the defect free. But the Opposite Party had demanded a sum of Rs. 600/- only more from the Complainant for replacing the said defective device.

             Thus the fact remains that the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to do the needful and ultimately the Opposite Party paid no heed to the legitimate claim of the Complainant.

             Moreover, all the allegations made by the Complainant are unchallenged, though the Opposite Party got enough chance to contest the case and to refute it by appearing before the Forum. Therefore, there are no reasons to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the bonafide Consumer/Complainant.

             Therefore, in light of the above analysis, we are inclined to hold that the Complainant has successfully proved his case and is entitled to get the relief as prayed for and consequently the points for determination are decided in affirmative.

             In short, the Complainant deserves success.

             In the result, we proceed to pass 

                                                                                                           O R D E R 

             That the complaint be and the same is allowed ex-parte against Opposite Party with cost of Rs. 500/- only payable by the Opposite party to the Complainant within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.

              That the Opposite Party is directed to repair the said device/MTS  Mobile phone (being  MEID  No. A–1000036 D 093 AD) purchased by the Complainant within one month from the date of this ‘Order’, in default the Opposite Party is directed to replace the said device with a new one of same model and same price within the aforesaid period.

              That the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- only to the C0omplainant, as compensation for mental agony and harassment within one month from the date of this ‘Order’. 

              In the event of non compliance of any portion of the order by the Opposite Party within a period of one month from the date of this order, the Opposite Party shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 50/- per day, from the date of this order till its realization, as punitive damages, which amount shall be deposited by the Opposite Party in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.

              Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.