Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/347/2015

Ravindra M Hugar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor KIRTI ELECTRONICS - Opp.Party(s)

R B Turamari

09 Dec 2015

ORDER

(Order dictated by Shri. B.V.Gudli, President)

ORDER

          U/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging sale of defective mobile hand set.

          2) Inspite of service of notice O.Ps. remained absent. Hence placed ex-parte.

          3) In support of the claim of the complaint, the complainant has filed affidavit and produced some documents.

4) We have heard the arguments of the complainant and have perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved sale of defective mobile hand set by the O.Ps. as well as deficiency in service and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?

          6) Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative, for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

            7) The complainant has claimed that he purchased Micromax Company mobile handset bearing Model No. Bolt A47, bearing M.IMEI No. 9113455750151 and S.IMET No.91134557857655 from the O.P. No.1 dealer for a sum of Rs.5,200/- on 25/11/2014. Said hand set has defects, that Mobile hand set was not functioning properly and giving trouble. These facts were brought to the notice of the O. P. No.1. Oppt No.1 directed complainant to approach Oppt. No.2. The complainant approached the Opponent No.2 for repair or replace of Mobile. The Oppt. No.2 assured to solve problem, mobile is within warranty period. Further the complainant alleged that after purchase of the said mobile hand set automatically gets heated and switched off. When the complainant started to use internet and so also the battery of the said handset not of good quality. As the opponents was not giving proper response hence it amount to deficiency of service and complainant had put to mental torture etc,. The complainant further alleged that on 16/4/2015 got issued legal notice through his counsel calling the O.Ps. No.1 and 2 to repair or replace the Mobile hand set and the notice was duly served to opponents, but the O.Ps. failed to get the hand set repair or replace nor replied to the said notice. Hence complainant constrained to file this complaint against opponents.

          8) The facts referred to in the above paragraph are pleaded in the complaint and stated by the complainant in affidavit. The O.Ps. inspite of service of the notice has not appeared before the forum and not denied or disputed the claim of the complainant. Considering the material on record including the document, absolutely we have no reasons to disbelieve the statement of the complainant made on oath in the affidavit. So also, we have no reasons to doubt the claim of the complainant.

          9) Thus, the complainant has proved sale of the defective mobile hand set by the O.Ps. and further, the complainant has proved that in-spite of the requests made, the O.Ps. or customer care failed to remove defects and to redress grievance of the complainant.

          10) Accordingly, following order.

 

ORDER

          Complaint is partly allowed.

          The O.Ps. No. 1 and 2 are hereby directed to replace new mobile hand set of the same make with same feature with fresh warranty and guarantee within one month from the date of the order, failing which, refund the entire price of the hand set amounting to Rs.5,200/- to the complainant.

On receipt of new hand set or the price, the complainant shall return the hand set in dispute to the O.P No.1.

          The O.P. No. 1 and 2 are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards costs of the proceedings.

The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the order.

          (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 9^th December 2015)

            Member                   Member                    President.

gm*