Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
(3) Anil Kumar Singh
Member
Date of Order : 28.09.2018
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite party to refund full price of the said mobile amount of Rs. 4,499/- along with 18% interest.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 40,000/- as compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he has purchased a new mobile through Amazon for his personal use vide annexure – 1. The mobile was operated as per instruction and opposite party no. 2 extended guaranty of the said mobile for the period of one year. After purchasing aforesaid mobile, the complainant noticed that signal strength of slot-1 was poor besides other defects. Thereafter, he approached opposite party no. 2 who advised to update software but during the updating process mobile became dead. Thereafter engineer of opposite party no. 2 advised to sent the handset to Delhi and they issued a Jobsheet for the same. Thereafter the complainant repeatedly approached opposite party no. 2 who stated that within 5 days the problem will be resolve.
It is further case of the complainant that after 1 monthlater he received the handset in poor condition with scratch all around the phone and damaged display portion. The network problem still continues and battery shows only 10% to 15%. The complainant thereafter informed the opposite parties through E – mail and lodged the complaint in Consumer affair but nothing happened.
From record, it appears that when the registered notice dated 16.11.2017 did not return unserved, then Tamila was declared valid and opposite parties were allowed sufficient opportunity to file written statement. When opposite parties did not file show cause nor appeared despite sufficient opportunity then they were debarred from filing written statement and the matter was heard ex – parte.
As stated above, the complainant had purchased the aforesaid mobile vide annexure – 1 which was sent for repairing to opposite party no. 2 vide annexure – 2 and despite that the mobile could not be repaired rather when mobile was received with the same defect continued besides several scratches and damaged display system.
The complainant has asserted the aforementioned fact on affidavit and there is no counter version of opposite parties of the fact asserted by the complainant on oath hence we have no option but rely on the statement of the complainant which clearly disclose deficiency on the part of opposite parties.
For the reason stated above we direct the opposite parties to refund the price of the said mobile i.e. Rs. 4,499/- ( Rs. Four Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Nine only) to the complainant within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which opposite parties will have to pay 10% interest on the above said amount of Rs. 4,499/- ( Rs. Four Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Nine only) till its final payment.
Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Rs. Five Thousand only) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation cost within the period of two month.
Accordingly, this complaint stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member (F) Member President
