First Appeal No. 286 of 2013. Case: Tarlok Chand Rajesh Kumar Vs Harish Bhickta. Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 286 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Ahhishek Sood, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Prashar, Advocate |
| Judges | Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member and Prem Chauhan, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 |
| Judgement Date | January 08, 2014 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member
-
This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.9.2013, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 417/2010 by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, H.P., whereby the opposite party was directed to replace the mobile phone within 30 days from the receipt of this order and if the opposite party does not comply with this part of the order, then he shall repay an amount of Rs. 3,000 to the complainant along with 9% interest from the date of complaint till its actual payment Opposite party was also directed to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 1000 and costs of Rs. 1000. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their status in the complaint. Facts of the case within the narrow compass are that the complainant purchased 'G Fine W520' mobile handset from the opposite party on 29.5.2010 for Rs. 3,000, against bill/cash memo, with one year warranty. It was also alleged that from the very first day of the purchase of the handset, it started giving trouble and did not function properly. Thereafter, the matter was brought to the notice of the opposite party and the opposite party promised to exchange the defective handset with new one at the earliest and also assured for exchanging the mobile set. As such, complainant handed over the defective mobile set to the complainant. Other averments in the complaint are to the effect that after a week the complainant visited the shop of the opposite party for taking the mobile phone, but the opposite party handed over the same set to the complainant by saying that the set is working properly but it again went out of order and then he again visited the shop of the opposite party and requested to exchange the mobile set. As per him, mobile phone did not work properly despite repair of the same three times by the opposite party. He had also pleaded that the opposite party had failed to replace its defective mobile set despite various assurance given to him. Hence deficiency of service has been alleged on the part of the opposite party. In this background of the case, complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed with the prayer that opposite party be directed to replace the mobile set or to refund the cost of mobile phone i.e. Rs. 3,000 and damages to the tune of Rs. 10,000 along with litigation costs of Rs. 3,000 have also been claimed.
-
This complaint was resisted and contested by the opposite party...
To continue reading
Request your trial