BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 115 of 2017 Date of Institution : 25.5.2017
Date of Decision : 9.10.2017.
Girija Shanker S/o Sh. Ram Prasad, resident of H. No.13/997, Gali Darshan Hawaldar Wali, Khairpur Colony, Near Durga Mandir, Sirsa, District Sirsa (Mobile No.93551-48548).
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd. Warehouse Address: No.42/1 & 43, Kacherakanahalli Village Jagidenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore, Karnataka through its Manager/ Authorized Signatory.
2. M/s Shree Communication, Jain Market, Sadar Bazar, Near Masjid, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa through its Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory.
3. YU Televentures Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.21/14, Block-A, Naraina, Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi, through its Managing Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ………………… MEMBER
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE……MEMBER
Present: Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties already exparte.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a Yunicorn Mobile Model Yu 5530 from addressee no.1 vide invoice no.#BLR WFLD20160600213077 dated 10.6.2016 for an amount of Rs.12,999/- through Flipkart.com vide order ID OD106214360030906000 dated 7.6.2016 and the said mobile was delivered to the complainant at Sirsa. Its cost was paid by him in cash on delivery and the complainant was assured for guarantee of one year. The op no.1 is the authorized dealer of Yunicorn, op no.2 is care centre and op no.3 is manufacturer. It is further averred that after purchase of the mobile, the complainant was stunned to see the problems in the mobile like mike problem, network problem, hanging problem and processing problem. The complainant approached op no.2 and disclosed such problems occurred in the mobile to op no.2 on 9.1.2017 on which the op no.2 repaired the said mobile temporarily and not permanently. It is further averred that while repairing the mobile, the SIM slot was tampered/ broken by op no.2 which could not be replaced by op no.2. It is further averred that complainant contacted the op no.2 time and again to resolve the problems and every time the op no.2 repaired the mobile temporarily instead of removing the said problems permanently. The said mobile was again handed over by complainant on 8.2.2017 to op no.2 for removing the above said problems but the same has not been returned to the complainant by removing the problems permanently and after issuing notice the mobile was returned to him by repairing it temporarily. The mobile in question is still in defective condition and is dead because it is not working in any way. The complainant also sent a legal notice on 16.2.2017 to the ops asking them to replace the mobile with new one or in the alternate to refund the amount of the mobile in question but to no effect. Thereafter, the ops handed over the mobile in question to the complainant under protest in the mid of April 2017 by repairing the same temporarily and only after one day the same previous problems were found by the complainant and despite his several visits to op no.2 his grievance has not been redressed by ops due to which he has suffered a lot of harassment and mental agony. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notices, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties and therefore they were proceeded against exparte.
3. The complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of retail invoice/ bill Ex.C2, copy of job sheet dated 8.2.2017 Ex.C3, copy of legal notice Ex.C4, copy of letter dated 1.3.2017 Ex.C5, copies of courier receipts Ex.C6, Ex.C7 and copies of postal receipts Ex.C8 to Ex.C10.
4. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The complainant has placed on file his affidavit Ex.c1 wherein he has reiterated all the contents mentioned in the complaint. In support, the complainant has also placed on file copy of retail invoice/ bill Ex.C2, copy of job sheet dated 8.2.2017 Ex.C3, copy of legal notice Ex.C4, copy of letter dated 1.3.2017 Ex.C5, copies of courier receipts Ex.C6, Ex.C7 and copies of postal receipts Ex.C8 to Ex.C10. The pleadings and evidence of the complainant have gone unchallenged and unrebutted as all the opposite parties have failed to appear before this Forum and opted to proceed exparte. So we have no other option but to rely upon the version of the complainant that mobile in question of the complainant suffered severe defects in the warranty period and said defects could not be removed by the opposite parties despite several repairs. Therefore, the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of ops and the complainant deserves to be allowed.
6. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties either to replace the mobile in question with a new one of same make and model without any cost from complainant or to refund an amount of Rs.12,999/- i.e. cost of the mobile in question to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum on the above said amount from ops from the date of order till actual compliance. Besides above, the ops are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. It will be the prime duty of the op no.2 i.e. local care centre of the company to get this order fully complied from other ops besides its own liability. The complainant will deposit the mobile in question alongwith its accessories with op no.2 under proper receipt immediately. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:9.10.2017. Member Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
