BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 118 of 2016
Date of Institution:9.3.2016
Date of Decision: 18.5.2016
Agam Thakur aged 29 years S/o Late Dr.Gandharb Singh, Resident of 419, Medical Enclave, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- YU Televentures Private Limited having its office at 21/14 Block-A Ph-II Narsina Industrial Area, Naraina 110028 ,New Delhi
Opposite Party
Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : Sh.Kanwar Pahul,Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Ex-parte
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Agam Thakur ,complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant purchased one mobile phone worth Rs. 8999/- namely YU Yureka (Moondust Grey) bearing IMEI No. 911401502588575 online from Amazon which is manufactured by opposite party on 5.3.2015, invoice dated 5.3.2015 is attached. The said mobile developed multiple defects . As such after several complaints made by the complainant via e-mails, the mobile was replaced by the opposite party with a new one on 24.11.2015 vide invoice dated 24.11.2015 copy attached. However, said replaced mobile phone also developed defects such as device unable to charge etc. The complainant again made several complaints to opposite party via e-mail regarding defects in his mobile phone dated 15.12.2015 and 31.12.2015. On 4.1.2016 the opposite party intimated the complainant via e-mail that opposite party is ready to replace the mobile phone again. Opposite party created REPL (replacement) vide reference No.PB-040116-21158099 and told the complainant that he could track his device online. The complainant checked the same but the mobile phone has not been delivered to the complainant till date despite several requests made by him via e-mails dated 4.2.2016, 8.2.2016 and 13.2.2016, copies of the e-mails are enclosed. The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice and till date the complainant is pursuing his matter with the opposite party, but in vain. The complainant has suffered mental agony, inconvenience and harassment due to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice as such the complainant is entitled to suitable compensation from the opposite party. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, despite due service, opposite party did not opt to appear and contest the complaint, as such opposite party was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
3. In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill Ex.C-2, copies of e-mails Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-8, copy of retail invoice Ex.C-9, copies of e-mails Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-12 and closed his ex-parte evidence.
4. We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
5. The oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the complainant in support of his case has gone unrebutted on record because the opposite party despite due service did not opt to appear and contest the claim.
6. By suffering ex-parte voluntarily, opposite party has acquiesced the claim of the complainant. Even otherwise also from the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that at the first instance the complainant purchased mobile phone worth Rs.8999/- vide invoice dated 5.3.2015, copy whereof is Ex.C-2. However, said mobile developed multiple defects and the complainant made several complaints via e-mails. After that the opposite party replaced the said mobile phone on 24.11.2015 vide invoice, copy whereof is Ex.C-9. Even the replaced mobile phone also developed defects such as device was unable to charge. The complainant again filed complaints to the opposite party via e-mails regarding the defects in the mobile phone dated 15.12.2015 and 31.12.2015, copies whereof are Ex.C-10 & Ex.C-11. On 4.1.2016 the opposite party wrote to the complainant via email that opposite party is ready to replace the phone again and opposite party has created REPL (replacement) vide reference No. PB-040116-21158099. The complainant was further told that he could track his device online. But, however, no replacement has been made so far to the complainant. The complainant made several requests via e-mails dated 4.2.2016, 8.2.2016 and 13.2.2016 copies whereof are Ex. C-12 but till date the opposite party has failed to replace the defective mobile. As such the complainant has been able to make out a case and it is proved on record that the opposite party has indulged in unfair trade practice besides deficiency in service on its part. As such the opposite party is directed to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new mobile hand set of the same make and model within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order. If no compliance is made by that time, the opposite party shall be liable to refund the amount of Rs. 8999/- i.e. value/price of the mobile handset in dispute, to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% p.a from the date of passing of the order until full and final recovery. The complaint stands ex-parte allowed accordingly. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 18.05.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
