Himachal Pradesh

Shimla

145/2012

Manohar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Mobile Store - Opp.Party(s)

Vivek Sharma

27 Mar 2015

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Shimla H.P.
 
Complaint Case No. 145/2012
 
1. Manohar Singh
R/o Vill Nadukhar ,Po Basantpur ,Tehsil Sunni ,Distt Shimla 171018
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Mobile Store
Shop No 2 chopra Complex ,Main Bazar sanjauli Shimla
2. Nokia India
SP Infocity, Industrial area Plot no.243 Udyog Vihar, Phase-I, Dundahera, Gurgaon (Haryana)Pin code of 122016, Through its Manager.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. K.S.Chandel PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Yogita Dutta MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Subneet Singh Chauhan Member
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER



BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSALFORUM,
SHIMLA,H.P
.
Complaint No. 145/2012
Presented On: 3.5.2012
Decided On: 27.3.2015
………………………………………………………………………..
..
Sh. Manohar Singh, S/o Late Sh. Prem Singh , R/o Village Nadukhar, P.O
Basantpur, Tehsil Suni, District Shimla 171018(H.P.)
…..Complainant
Versus
1. The Mobile Store Ltd, Shop No.2, Chopra Complex, Main Bazar,
Sanjauli, Shimla171006, H.P, Through its Manager.
2. Nokia India, SP infocity, Industrial area Plot NO. 243, Udyog Vihar,
Phase-1, Dundahera, Gurgoan (Haryana) 122016, Through its
Manager
…..Opposite party
………………………………………………………………………………..
CORAM
Sh. K.S.Chandel, President
Smt. Yogita Dutta, Member.
Sh. Subneet Singh Chauhan, Member
………………………………………………………………………………..
For the complainant: Sh. Vivek Sharma, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties: Ex-parte
………………………………………………………………………………..
ORDER:.
K.S.CHANDEL,( District Judge) President


The complainant Manohar Singh has preferred this
complaint under section 11 & 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
against the opposite party ( hereinafter referred as OPs for short)
claiming deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice by the
OPs. The complainant has pleaded and claimed that he has purchased
one Nokia mobile hand set, model No. 5233 Digital No/ IMEI
358269042312743 from the OP for consideration of Rs. 5894/- vide
bill/invoice Annexure C-1 to C-3 along with one year warranty . The
complainant has further pleaded and claimed that the mobile phone
did not function properly having problem related to screen as well as
hanging frequently and the OP has failed to correct/rectify the
problem of the mobile phone within warranty period despite repeated
requests by the complainant. The complainant has further pleaded and


claimed that there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade
practice by the OP and thereby has sought direction to the OP to pay
the compensation including litigation expenses. The complaint is duly
supported with an affidavit of complainant.
2. The OP-1 has failed to contest the plea of the complainant and
thereby has been proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated
11.12.2013 and the OP-2 has been proceeded against ex-parte vide
order dated 23.7.2012.
3. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and
perused the entire case file with minute care.
4. The complainant has relied upon his complaint along with
affidavit and documents, bills of the mobile phone for the amount of
Rs. 5894/- Annexure C-1 and has paid additional extended warranty
vide bill Annexure C-2 and extended warranty certificate Annexure
C-3. The OP has failed to remove the defect in the mobile phone of
the complainant within warranty period as the OPs have failed to
contest the plea of the complainant and thereby have been proceeded
against ex-parte. The complainant has purchased the mobile set vide
bill Annexure C-1 for amounting to Rs. 5894/- from the OP-1 and
already paid amount of Rs. 99/- for extended warranty vide bill
Annexure C-2 as per extended warranty certificate Annexure C-3.
The mobile phone stopped functioning properly having screen
problem as well as hanging problem and, as such, the act of OPs to
deny the services to the complainant despite extended warranty
amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice and
as such, the complaint is allowed ex-parte and the OP-1 and OP-2 are
directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant or to pay cost of
the mobile phone in question amounting to Rs. 5894/- including cost
of warranty Rs. 99/- total amounts to Rs.5993/- with interest @ 9%
P.A from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 3.5.2012 till realization.
The OP is further directed to pay compensation for harassment
including litigation expenses of Rs. 1500/-. The OPs are directed to
pay this amount within 45 days from the receipt to the copy of the


order. Hence, the present complaint stands allowed. Copy of this
order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rules.
Announced on this 27th day of March ,2015
( K.S.Chandel)
President
(Yogita Dutta) (Subneet Singh Chauhan)
Member Member
(Mahajan)





 
 
[HON'BLE MR. K.S.Chandel]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Yogita Dutta]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Subneet Singh Chauhan]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.