DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.81 of 9.3.2017

                                      Decided on:     2.8.2017

Amanpreet Singh, age 23 years, s/o Sh.Jaspal Singh, R/o House No.19, Ranjit Nagar, Near Green Land Public School, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Snapdeal, 362, 363, ASF Centre, Udyog Vihar, Industrial Area, Phase-4, Gurgaon-PIN 122001, through its MD/Chairman/General Manager.

2.       Dukaan Resources Pvt. Ltd. GGN_SDRNA, Khasra No.26//13, 14, 15/1, 16/1, 17/1, 18/1, 27//11, VIII. Sadhrana Village, City Gurgaon, State Haryana –PIN - 123505 through its Proprietor/Manager.

3.       MEIZU CARE CENTER OFFICE, 1^st Floor, D-8, Thiru. VI Ka Industrial Estate Gulndy, Chennai, 600032, through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.Amanreet Singh, complainant in person.

                                      Opposite Parties ex-parte.

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM  GUPTA,  MEMBER

1. The complainant placed an on-line order with OP no.1 for the purchase of one mobile phone make Meizu M35(32GB) on 23.11.2016, which was delivered to the complainant on 25.11.2016.It is averred that after a period of almost 15 days from the purchase of the said mobile phone, red lines appeared on the screen of the mobile phone, it’s screen used to get red in sunlight and also it used to stop while the battery was still 90% charged. The complainant made a telephonic complaint to OP, who told the complainant to reset the mobile phone. After working for a few days, the same problem reoccurred and the complainant approached OP no.1, who told the complainant to approach its service centre at Chandigarh. Accordingly, the complainant approached the service centre at Chandigarh but the official of the service centre did not listen to the genuine complaint of the complainant. The complainant again made a telephonic call to OP no.1 who told the complainant that it will replace the mobile phone of the complainant. The complainant again contacted OP no.1 who told the complainant to send the mobile phone to Chennai through courier but when the complainant asked the OP to give guarantee, OP told the complainant to do whatever he liked. The complainant underwent a lot o harassment and failure on the part of the OPs to rectify the problem, amounted to deficiency in service on their part. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986.
2. On notice, OPs No.1&3 did not appear despite service and OP no.2 refused to receive the notice. Thus, the OPs were proceeded against exparte.
3. In support of the complaint, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA alongwith document sExs.C1 o C11 and closed the evidence.
4. The complainant did not file written arguments. We have heard the complainant in person and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
5. Ex.C1, is the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone on 23.11.2016 for a sum of Rs.9299/-.Ex.C3 is the e-mail dated 17.2.2017, sent by OP no.1 to the complainant in which OP has apologized for the inconvenience caused to the complainant. Ex.C4 is the e-mail dated 26.2.2-017, sent by the complainant to OP no.1.Ex.C6 is the e-mail sent by OP no.1 to the complainant to get the mobile phone repaired from the service centre. Ex.C8 is the e-mail dated 3.3.2017, sent by OP no.3 to the complainant asking him to send his mobile phone to Chennai. All the conversations through e-mail between the complainant and the OPs show that the complainant underwent a lot of harassment at the hands of the OPs. The problem in the mobile phone occurred during warranty period and failure on the part of the OPs to rectify the same amounted to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant was not only deprived of the use of the mobile phone rather he was dragged into forced litigation.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant and hold the OPs jointly and severally liable to refund the amount of Rs.9299/- to the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.4000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant and a sum of Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:2.8.2017                  

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER