DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 311 of 8.8.2016

                                      Decided on:                    23.8.2017

Radhey Shyam @ Babu son of Dwarka Dass, resident of H.No.216, New Dhillon Colony, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Yuvi Mobile Accessories, Pili Sarak, Old Sabzi Mandi, Patiala through its authorized signatory.
2. Sonu Mobile Care, Authorized Panasonic Service Centre, Bus Stand, Patiala.
3. Karbonn Care Service, D-170, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Deli through its authorized signatory.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member 

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.Sudhir Sharma,Advocate,counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite Parties No. 1to3 ex-parte.

ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM  GUPTA,  MEMBER

1. The complainant purchased one mobile phone having Model No.ALPA A110, (Karbonn A-10) bearing IMEI No.911461250492792 from OP no.1 for a sum of Rs.2400/- on 19.9.2015.It is averred that after a period of two months the said mobile phone started giving problem and the complainant approached Op no.1 who directed him to approach OP no.2 i.e. the authorized service centre of the company. Accordingly the complainant got the mobile phone deposited with OP no.2 on 11.4.2016 vide job sheet No.KJASPPB 192416KR2224.Thereafter complainant approached OP no.2 time and again but Op no.2 did not rectify the problem in the mobile phone of the complainant. On 28.6.2016, the complainant got served registered legal notice to the OPs for the refund of the price of the mobile phone but to no use. As such, the complainant underwent a lot of mental agony and harassment at the hands of the OPs. The complainant being a labourer needed the mobile phone. The act of the OPs by not rectifying the problem in the mobile phone, amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act), 1986.
2. On notice, OPs no.1&2 failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against exparte, whereas OP no.3 appeared through counsel but failed to file written version inspite of availing many opportunities and was ultimately proceeded against ex-parte.
3. In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C6 and his counsel closed the evidence.
4. The complainant filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and also gone through the evidence on record.
5. Ex.C1 is the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone from OP no.1 on 19.9.2015.Ex.C2 is the job sheet dated 11.4.2016 vide which the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP No.2.Thereafter the complainant approached OP no.2 time and again but Op no.2 neither rectified the problem, nor returned the mobile phone to the complainant. Since 11.4.2016, the mobile phone in question is lying with Op no.2.These days mobile phone is a basic necessity and the complainant being a labourer underwent a lot of problem without the mobile phone. Almost 16 months have passed and OP no.2 has not rectified or replaced the mobile phone, which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
6. As an upshot of aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant against OPs no.2&3 only and dismiss the same against OP no.1as it is merely a seller of the product. As per this order OPs no.2&3 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.2400/- i.e. the price of the mobile phone to the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/-as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Order be complied by OPs no.2&3 within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:23.8.2017       

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER