Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 195.

                                                          Instituted on     : 02.05.2018.

                                                          Decided on       : 16.10.2018.

Anil Kumar, Electric Office, Ground Floor, Agro Mall, Rohtak now village-Kasani, Teh. & Distt. Jhajjar.

                                                          .......................Complainant.

                             Vs.

1. Head Customer Service, Tata Unistore Limited 1^st Floor, Empire Plaza-2 Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg Chandan Nagar, Vikroli West, Mumbai(Maharashtra)-440083.
2. Sri Rajani Communication Flat no.108 Innovative Meva Lake View Apartment, 5^th Cross Anugraha Layout, Billekahalli(Karnataka)-560078.
3. M/s Rising Stars Mobile India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.M-2B, Sipcot Industrial Park, Phase-II, Hi-Tech Sez DTA Area, Sriperumbudur Taluk Kancheepuram-602106(Tamilnadu).
4. HMD Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. Pioneer Urban Square Complex, No.510 5^th Floor Tower-C, Gold Course Extension Road, Sector-62, Gurgaon(Haryana) 122102.

……….Opposite parties.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

                   SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER

Present:       Sh.Anand Kumar, Advocate for complainant.

                   Opposite parties No.1 to 3 exparte.

                   Opposite party No.4 given up.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a Nokia-6 mobile online for a sum of Rs.14149/-. That the delivery was to be done through Tata Cliq. That when the parcel was received by the complainant then he was shocked to see that there was mobile of Microsoft instead of Nokia-6 and said mobile was in damaged condition. That complainant immediately informed the opposite parties about the alleged damaged phone. That officials of the opposite parties assured the complainant to replace the mobile but they started lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and has not replaced the mobile set till date. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of respondents.  Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties  to refund the cost of mobile set alongwith interest and also to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses etc. as explained in the relief clause.   

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 did not appear despite notice through registered post and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.06.2018 of this Forum. Opposite party No.4 was given up by the complainant vide statement dated 09.08.2018 being unnecessary party.

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.CW1/B to Ex.CW1/N and closed his evidence.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          Perusal of the documents reveals that the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 29.01.2018 for a sum of Rs.14149/- online. The contention of complainant is that when he received the mobile, the same was of Microsoft instead of Nokia-6 and said mobile was in damaged condition. Complainant complained the same to the opposite parties. Opposite parties replied through emails Ex.CW1/E to Ex.CWJ and assured the complainant to wait for sometime but no action has been taken by the OPs and the mobile has not been replaced till date. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 to 3 have not appeared before this Forum for the rebuttal against the pleadings of the complainant placed on the file and remained exparte in the present case. As such all the allegations leveled against the opposite parties regarding selling of defective mobile set stands proved. As the mobile was found defective only on the day of its delivery and complainant has lost faith in the company and its product, so it is better to refund the price of mobile phone.

6.                          Accordingly the complaint is allowed and it is directed that opposite party No.2 & 3 shall jointly and severally refund the price of mobile set i.e. to pay Rs.14149/-(Rupees fourteen thousand one hundred forty nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 02.05.2018 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service, to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.  However, complainant is also directed to hand over the mobile in question to the OP No.2/3 at the time of payment by the OPs.  

7.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.

8.                          File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

16.10.2018.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          …………………………………

                                                          Ved Pal, Member.

                                                                        ………………………………..

                                                                        Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.