Mobile firm fined Rs 2,000 for deficiency in service

The complainant approached Shivam Communication which kept the mobile for two days and returned it by saying the mobile had been repaired as there was some software problem. After one week, the mobile started giving problems in hanging, voice and the mobile getting automatically off.
The complainant visited Raj Traders and explained the problem but they refused to accept the mobile. The complainant approached Shivam Communication. He was assured that the fault would be removed within two days but returned the mobile set after 23 days. The complainant found that the problem was still there. Thereafter, the complainant again visited the service centre but in vain. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the customer care many times but no response was received. The complainant served a legal notice on September 5, 2015, on the opposite parties but to no avail and the complainant was forced to buy another mobile for Rs 8,000 to make a stopgap arrangement.

The forum issued notice to the opposite parties but none appeared on their behalf.

Kapoor, stated: “The opposite parties did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed ex parte, which draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the opposite parties despite notices show that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the same are accepted as correct and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is proved.”