DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.51 of 15
DATE OF INSTITUTION: -13.2.2015
DATE OF ORDER: - 04-06-2015
Neeraj Tanwar son of Shri Laxman Singh Tanwar, resident of House No.83, Jagat Colony, Bhiwani, tehsil and district Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- Universal Mobile Care, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani, through its authorized signatory.
- M/s ABC Telecommunications, U-22, LCN, Ramesh Nagar, Metro Station, Opposite Ticket Counter, Gurdwara Side, Delhi through its Prop.
- Micromax Informatics Ltd. 21/14A, Phase-II, Narina Industrial Area, Delhi, through its Regional/Branch Manager.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member
Present: - Smt. Jyoti Bhardwaj, Adv. for complainant.
OPs ex parte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that he had purchased one Handset of Micromax Company for a sum of Rs. 9200/- from OP No.1 vide bill No.07893 dated 9.6.2014. It is alleged that soon after purchase the Hand Set became defective within warranty period and complaint was lodged with the opposite parties. The complainant visited the service centre of respondent company several times and requested to repair the same but it flatly refused to do the needful. Hence the complainant was deprived of use of the Hand Set and suffered a loss. Now the complainant has claimed the replacement of the Hand Set along with compensation and costs by way of filing present complainant.
2. Opposite Parties have failed to come present despite service. Hence, they were proceeded against ex parte by this Forum vide order dated 27.4.2015.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 Photostat copy of Bill dated 9.6.2014, Annexure C2 Photostat copy of Job Sheet, Annexure C3 Photostat copy of postal receipts, Annexure C4 Photostat copy of legal notice along with affidavit CW1/A dated 4.6.2015.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. She argued that the Mobile Hand Set on the instructions of Opposite Party No.1 was delivered to Opposite Party No.2 for repairs but till date Mobile Hand Set has not been returned by the opposite party No.2 despite repeated requests. In support of her contention she referred Photostat copy of bill Annexure C1, Photostat copy of Job Sheet Annexure C2 and Photostat copy of Legal Notice C4 along with Postal Receipts. The evidence adduced by the complainant before this District Forum has un-rebutted and unchallenged as the opposite parties did not appear and contest the claim. Keeping in view the facts, as narrated by counsel for the complainant, we hold that the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency in service. We allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.9200/-, cost of the Mobile Hand Set, to the complainant. This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the opposite parties shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above said amount from the date of passing of this order till the date of payment.
Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: .4-6.2015. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anita Sheoran), (Balraj Singh),
Member. Member.
