Haryana

Kurukshetra

116/2018

Tarun - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sunny Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

G.K.Suneja

23 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.116 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution: 21.05.2018.

                                                     Date of decision: 23.07.2018.

Tarun Sharma (aged about 10 years) minor son of Sh. Kuldeep Kumar Sharma, minor through his father Kuldeep Kumar Sharma as guardian and next friend, resident of Shiv Shakti Mandir, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Sunny Mobile World, Opposite Delhi Juice Corner, Salarpur Road, Kurukshetra, through its proprietor namely Navneet Arora.
2. M/s. Aditya Communication, Shop No.610, Mohan Nagar, near Aggarsain Chowk, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra through its proprietor.
3. Micromax House, 90B, Sector-18, Gurgaon-Haryana-122015 through its Managing Director.    

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. G.K.Suneja, Adv. for the complainant.

                Ops exparte.   

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Tarun Sharma against Sunny Mobile World and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a mobile set make Micro Convas 1 bearing IMEI No.911573906948660 for a sum of Rs.6,000/- from the Op No.1 vide bill No.993 dt. 10.01.2018.  It is alleged that on 30.03.2018, the said mobile set became defective with the defects hanging problem, Wi-Fi problem and battery problem.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.1 regarding the defective mobile set and on the asking of Op No.1, the complainant approached the Op No.2 and deposited the mobile set with the Op No.3 on 03.04.2018 but the Op No.2 did not repair the defective mobile set and the said defective mobile set is still lying with the Op No.2.  The complainant approached the Ops several times for repair or replacement of said mobile set but the Ops did not do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to replace the mobile set with the new one or to return Rs.6,000/- as the cost of mobile set to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony or any other relief which this Forum may deems fit.

3.            Upon notice, the OPs did not appear and opted to proceed exparte vide order dt. 03.07.2018.

4.             To prove his case, ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and document Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and thereafter closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.    

5.             We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and perused the record carefully and minutely.

6.             From the cash memo, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 10.01.2018 for the sale consideration of Rs.6,000/-.  From the job-sheet dt. 03.04.2018, it is clear that the mobile set in question became defective within the guarantee period.  The complainant has supported his versions by filing his affidavit, Ex.CW1/A, copy of cash memo, Ex.C1, copy of job-sheet, Ex.C2 and copy of aadhar card, Ex.C3.  There is no rebuttal on the part of Ops.  So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged.  In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced with the new one from the Op No.3, who is manufacturer of mobile set.

7.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OP No.3 to replace the hand set of the complainant with the new one of the same model.  The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.3.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.   File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:23.07.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Anamika Gupta)             

                                        Member