Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/291/2017

HARBINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

YU TELEVENTURE - Opp.Party(s)

GURPREET SINGH

14 Mar 2018

ORDER

               DISTRICT    CONSUMER     DISPUTES   REDRESSAL  FORUM, JAMMU

                (Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                         

 Case File  No                351/DFJ         

 Date of  Institution     07-12-2016

 Date of Decision          26-02-2018

 

 

Harbinder Singh,

S/O S.Baldev Singh,

R/O Akali KOur Singh Nagar,

Digiana,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                        Complainant

                 v/s

 

1.YU Televentures Pvt.ltd.

    Block A,plot no.21/14,

   Narania Industrial Area Phase-II,

   Delhi-110028.

2. 21^st Century 11-A Ext.1,Gandhi Nagar,

     Jammu.

 

4. Sawhney Communications,(YU Service Centre)

    Shop No.3 Prem Nagar Near

      Gujjar Nagar Bridge,Jammu-180001.

 

                                                                       Opposite parties

CORAM

                  Khalil Choudhary    (Distt.& Sessions Judge)   President

                  Mrs.Vijay Angral                                                     Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                               Member.

 

In the matter of  Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

 

      Mr.Gurpreet Singh,Advocate for complainant, present.

   Nemo for  OPs.

 

 

 

ORDER

                        Grievance of complainant as is discernible from the complaint is that he ordered an on line YU Mobile and purchased the YU Yuphoria handset model YU 5010A  Yuphoria on,05-12-2015 bearing IMEI No.911476050256320 and IMEI No.911476051256329 from OP2 vide invoice No.5448 for an amount of Rs.7900/-(copy of bill  Annexure-A). That after the purchase of handset, it started malfunctioning and its screen got while and because of which complainant approached YU Service Centre on,11-11-2016 for removal of defects occurred in the handset(copy of job card Annexure-B).According to complainant OP3 after repairing the handset handed over to complainant, but it did not function properly, as its on-off apparatus and its display screen got malfunctioned.Complainant further submitted that even after the repair of handset by OP3,it developed number of defects such as, hanging problem, touch screen not working properly, touch auto function ,screen of the handset turning black and white, software corrupt  and he was not able to receive and make calls number of times as he is an advocate and suffered a lot due to malfunctioning of handset.Submission of complainant is that Ops delivered handset which was marred by manufacturing defect,therefore,same constitutes deficiency in service,therefore,prays for refund of cost of handset  or replacement of handset with a new one and in addition, also prays for compensation of Rs.60,000/-including litigation charges.

                   On the other hand,Ops despite service of  notices through registered postal means did not take any action to represent their  case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period, provided under the Act. Thereafter, the right of the OPs to file reply was closed, vide order dated, 18-05-2017.

                            Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own evidence affidavit and affidavit of Harpreet Kour. Complainant has placed on record copy of job card and copy of clipping of newspaper.

                    We have perused case file and heard L/C appearing for complainant at length.

                       To be brief, allegation of complainant is that he purchased  handset manufactured by OP1,but after few months  from its purchase, handset was marred by defects,however,despite repeated requests,OPs failed to remove  the alleged defects. In so far as, allegation of complainant regarding defects in the handset are concerned and failure of Ops to remove alleged defects, same went unchallenged from OPs side.

                 In support of his allegations, complainant filed his own duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavit of Harpreet Kour, which are verbatim reproduction of contents of complaint,therefore,need no reiteration. Complainant has also placed on record copy of job card and copy of clipping of newspaper.            

               On the other hand, OPs despite being duly served, failed to take any action to represent their case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of the complainant or to deny it, so there is no reply filed by OPs in this complaint and there is also no evidence to rebut the case of the complainant. The present case of the complainant is covered by Section 11 (2) (b) (ii)of the Consumer Protection Act,1987, which provides that in a case where the Ops omits or fails to take any action to represent their case within the time given by Forum, in that situation the Forum shall settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. Sub-Clause (ii) of the Section 11, of Act of 1987, clearly, provides that when OPs omits or fails to take any action to represent their case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

               From perusal of the documentary evidence and affidavits filed by complainant, it is found that complainant has succeeded in proving his case, against OPs,as they have failed to take any action or represent their case, despite making repeated requests,therefore,a case is made out by complainant for deficiency in service on the part of Ops,in not redressing his grievance.

                  Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has succeeded in proving deficiency in service on the part of OPs,as such,OPs are directed to refund cost of handset to the tune of Rs.7900/- to the complainant.OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.3000/-as litigation charges to complainant. The awarded amount be deposited in this Forum by OPs jointly and severally within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                                    Khalil Choudhary

                                                                                     (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

                                                                                            President

Announced                                                           District Consumer Forum

   26-02-2018                                                                       Jammu.

 

Agreed by                                                               

                                                                           

Ms.Vijay Angral                                              

 Member    

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan,

Member