Haryana

Karnal

CC/108/2016

Mamta D/o Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

W.S. Retail Services Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

01 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                              Complaint No.108 of 2016

                                                             Date of instt.:08.04.2016

                                                               Date of decision 1.8.2016

 

Mamta d/o Shri Ashok Kumar resident of House no.63, Gali no.4, near Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, Basant Vihar Colony Karnal.

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. W.S. Retail Services Private Pvt. Ltd. c/o Ozone Manay Tech Parf, no.56/187, ‘B’ Block 9^th Floor Garvebhavipalya, Houur Road, Karnatka India through its authorized signatory.

2. New Mass Communication shop no.152, Mugal Canal Karnal 9355913051.

3. Motorola Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. Build no.-7A, 12^th Floor, Tower D DLF Cyber Green, Phase III Gurgaon 122001.

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Complainant in person.

                    Opposite parties exparte.

                                       

 ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that she purchased a mobile Motorola E from opposite party no.1(online) for a sum of Rs.5999/-, vide bill dated 15.04.2015, with a warranty of one year. The said mobile set was manufactured by opposite party no.3 and opposite party no.2 was authorized service centre of the company. After 3-4 months, the said mobile set started giving problems and she approached to the opposite party no.2 for repair of the mobile set. Opposite party no.2 replaced the mother board of the mobile set and assured her that there was no problem in the hand set. On the assurance of opposite party no.2 she took his mobile. But after sometime the same problem was occurred and she again approached to the opposite party no.2 on 7.9.2015. The opposite party no.2 again repaired the mobile set and handover to her. But the mobile set again and again created same problem. She requested the opposite party no.2 for replacement of the mobile set but opposite party no.2 did not pay any heed to the genuine request of complainant. She visited several times opposite party no.2 for rectification of defects, but opposite party no.2 did not rectify the defects and returned the mobile set without any repair.  Such acts on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service on their part, which caused her mental agony, harassment and financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties. None put into appearance on behalf of opposite parties despite service. Therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated against them.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, her affidavit Ex. C1 and documents Ex.C2 and C3 have been tendered.

4                 We have heard the complainant and have also gone through the documents placed on file carefully.

5.                The complainant purchased mobile set Motorola E for a sum of Rs5999/-. As per allegations of the complainant, after 3-4 months it was not working properly. So she reported the matter to opposite party no.2, the authorized service centre of the company, who kept the hand set for rectification of defects and replacing the mother board. This fact is evident from Delivery Challan Ex.C3. But after sometime the same problem occurred, the opposite party no.2 did not rectify the defects after several efforts and returned the mobile to her without any repair.  The complainant has also filed her affidavit in support of her allegations. This, evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. It was the duty of the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 either to rectify the defects or in case the defects were not removeable, then replace the mobile set of the complainant. Hence, it is well proved that the service of the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 was deficient.

6.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party no.3 (being manufacturer) to replace the mobile set in question of the complainant with new one of the same value. We further direct the opposite parties no.3 to pay Rs.2200/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by her and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 1.8.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member