Haryana

Panchkula

CC/27/2016

VIPUL SHARMA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

YU TELEVENTURES PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

27 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                             

Consumer Complaint No	:	27 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	04.02.2016
Date of Decision	:	27.04.2016

                                                                                          

Vipul Sharma s/o Vinod Kumar Sharma, R/o H.No.365, Sector-2, Panchkula.

                                                                                       ….Complainant

Versus

 

Yu Televentures Pvt. Ltd., Block A, Plot No.21/14, Naraina Industrial Area, P Delhi-110028, Delhi, India.

                                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                             Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person. 

Op already ex-parte.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The present complaint has filed by the complainant against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a mobile phone from the Op on 13.10.2015 for Rs.6,599/- online make Yu Yuphoria vide invoice No.HR-SDEC-144105041 (Annexure C-1) and the mobile phone was delivered to him on 14.10.2015. Unfortunately, the screen of the mobile broke after 7 days i.e. on 21.10.2015 and the complainant immediately intimated the OP through e-mail. On 23.10.2015, the complainant received an email from the Op stating that a swap pickup was generated and they would send over someone to collect the same later during the day. The OP also stated that no accessories were to be given alongwith the handset. When the concerned person came over to pick up the handset stated that he would be required the box alongwith accessories. The complainant in good faith handed over the same and also mailed to the Op but no reply was received from them. The concerned person took away the mobile phone stating that they would give it back within 15 days after repairing the same but they did not give it back. The complainant wrote several mails on 01.11.2015, 07.11.2015, 09.11.2015, 10.11.2015, 12.11.2015, 13.11.2015, 17.11.2015, 19.11.2015 and 23.12.2015 regarding the status of the mobile but to no avail. Finally on 12.01.2016, the complainant ordered another phone for himself. This act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the Op through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the Op. It is deemed to be served and the Op was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.03.2016.
3. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1, C-2, C-2A to C-2C and C-3 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the complainant and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
5. It is evident from Annexure C-1 that the complainant purchased a mobile phone on 13.10.2015 for Rs.6,599/- online make Yu Yuphoria vide invoice No.HR-SDEC-144105041 which was delivered to him on 14.10.2015. After 7 days i.e. on 21.10.2015, the screen of the mobile was broken and the complainant intimated the OP through e-mail. On 23.10.2015, the complainant received an email from the Op stating that a swap pickup was generated and they would send someone to collect the same later during the day. When the concerned person came over to pick up the handset stated that he would be required the box alongwith accessories. The complainant in good faith handed over the same and also mailed to the Op (Annexure C-2A) but no reply was received from them. After perusing the record, it is clear that the complainant wrote many mails to OP on 09.11.2015, 10.11.2015 and 23.12.2015 (Annexure C-2B to and C-2D) regarding the status of the mobile but to no avail. Due to non-reply of the Op, the complainant had to purchase another mobile phone (Annexure C-3). The complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavit (Annexure C-A).
6. Moreover, the Op did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Op shows that it has nothing to say in its defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the same is accepted as correct and deficiency in service on the part of the Op is proved.
7. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Op is directed as under:-

(i)      To refund the price of the mobile i.e. Rs.6,599/- (including shipping charges of Rs.100) alongwith 9% interest from the date of purchase of mobile till its realization.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

27.04.2016     S.P.ATTRI           ANITA KAPOOR         DHARAM PAL

                         MEMBER          MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                          

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT