ORDER               Date:  23  January 2017

Manju Bala Sharma, Member

Instant complaint has been filed by the complainant on 05/05/2016 alleging therein that on 11/01/2015 complainant purchased mobile (Carbon Titanium Octane Plus) from OPs for a sum of Rs. 9699/- and was assured that in case of any defect or non working of the said mobile the OPs will either replace or refund the whole price of the mobile.  On 24/12/2015 in the morning when complainant picked up his mobile and tried to start it was found that the mobile was not working at all.  The complainantapproached the retail shop from where he purchased the mobile who suggested him to approach the service centre of the Carbon.  The complainant  approached the service centre but they refused to repair the same and said that they will charge for the repair of the said mobile.

It is further stated that the mobile is with the OP1, service centre, and OP 1 is harassing the complainant by not giving mobile back to the complainant after its repair.  Pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs complainant approached that OPs be directed to replace or refund the amount of Rs. 9699/-, compensation of Rs. 15000/- towards harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation.

 Notice was issued to both the OPs but nobody entered appearance on their behalf, though served, hence, proceeded ex parte on 30/08/2016 and 28/11/2016 respectively. 

Affidavit of evidence has been filed by the complainant reiterating the facts stated in the complaint.  Complainant has filed invoice of Rs. 9699/- for the purchase of mobile in question and job sheet dated 28/12/2015 issued by OP1, service centre in which the defect in the mobile has been mentioned as ‘display problem.’ Complainant has also placed on record copy the email dated 29/03/2016 sent to OP mentioning therein that he deposited the mobile in question at the service centre on 28/12/2015 and till date he has not received the same though visited several times at the service centre.    

We have heard the complainant and carefully gone through the documents filed by the complainant.  On perusal of the documents the name of the purchaser on  invoice, customer name on  job sheet as well as sendor’s name on e-mail sent by the complainant to the OP is mentioned as Aryan.   A notice was again issued to the complainant for clarification regarding the name of the complainant and the person who purchased the mobile and gave it to service centre as the complaint has been filed

in the name of Asheesh Kumar.    The complainant filed an affidavit in this regard stating therein that the actual name of the complainant is Asheesh Kumar whereas Aryan in whose name transaction has taken place is his nick name and he purchased the mobile in question in the name of Aryan and gave the same in the service centre i.e. OP 1 and the job sheet was also issued in his nick name, hence the complainant Asheesh Kumar and Aryan is the same person.

As nobody has entered appearance on behalf of OPs despite service of notice and the allegations put forth by the complainant have not been rebutted by the Ops,   we hold that story put forth by the complainant is true.   We found that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP 1.  Considering the fact that the complainant purchased the mobile on 11/03/2015 and the display problem occurred on 28/12/2015 i.e. after the expiry of 9 ½ months we hold that the ends of justice will be met if OP1 is  directed to refund Rs. 3500/- as cost of mobile phone Rs.  2,000/- and Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation.

The above said amount shall be paid by the OP1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which OP1 shall pay interest at the rate of 10 % on the above mentioned amount.  Copy of this order be sent to all the parties free of cost.   File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on this     23/01/2017