RAJ KUMAR Vs. PAWAN COMMUNICATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 27.6.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent, has been dismissed.

(2.) Appellant purchased a mobile telephone set of Micromax Make for Rs. 2,300 from the respondent on 16.9.2011, with one year warranty. Phone developed some snag on 6.11.2011. It was taken to the work place of the respondent, who removed the defect. Again, within warranty period, mobile phone developed some defect. Respondent was again approached, when the set was retained by the respondent with the assurance that it will be repaired soon, but till the filing of complaint, it had not been delivered back to the appellant. So, the appellant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking refund of the price of the phone as also compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000 and litigation expenses.

(3.) Respondent contested the complaint and pleaded that defect in the telephone set had occurred due to its mishandling by the appellant and that the appellant had tried to get the mobile phone repaired from some unauthorized mechanic. Also, it was pleaded that despite the aforesaid act of violation of warranty, telephone set was got repaired free of cost by the respondent, but the appellant did not turn up to collect the same inspite of repeated attempts made to contact him telephonically.