SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

Complainant’s case, in short, is that the complainant is a ‘consumer’ under the C.P. Act, 1986. OP1 is the dealer cum seller and authorized service center under the OP2 and the service provider of the complainant in connection of the mobile purchased by the complainant. OP2 is the maker of the mobile set purchased by the complainant.

Complainant purchased the mobile set from OP1 on 30.01.2015 from his showroom by cash payment of Rs.3700/- against proper cash memo and at the time of purchase OP1 promised to provide full service and warranty for 1 year from the date of purchase.

Complainant alleged that after purchase of the mobile set, it started disturbing and OP1 temporarily solved the problem. But on 13.01.2016 the set stopped functioning fully well within the warranty period and the complainant handed over the said mobile set to OP1 for servicing on 16.01.2016. On 06.02.2016, OP1 returned the mobile set to the complainant and stated that mobile set is out of warranty period. Complainant’s repeated request failed. Complainant stated OP1 has deficiency in service in repairing the mobile set. Hence, this case.

It appears from the record that OPs did not turn up in spite of service of summon upon them.

Point for consideration

Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?

Decision with reason

Complainant filed a petition praying for treating the complaint as affidavit-in-chief. It appears from the record that complainant has produced original cash memo dtd. 30.01.2015 given by the OP1. It also appears from the Lenovo Service Record filed by the complainant that OP1 did not provide any service to the complainant for the problem of the mobile set. Complainant also filed Terms and Conditions of services and according to complainant when he handed over the said mobile set to OP1 warranty period was not over. When OPs did not turn up to contest the case, then on the basis of documents filed by the complainant, we have no hesitation to say that the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

Hence, it is

ORDERED

That the consumer case being no. CC/20/2016 be and the same is allowed exparte against both the OPs. OP1 is directed to repair the mobile set within 1 month from the date of delivery of this judgement, alternatively, to replace the mobile set or to return the full price of the set to the complainant within 1 month from the date of delivery of this judgement. OP1 is further directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost within 1 month from the date of delivery of this judgement, failing which OP1 is liable to pay Rs.50/- per day as punitive charges which will be payable to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Let the copies of the judgement be supplied to all the parties free of cost.