Haryana

Sonipat

221/2014

HIMANSHU JAWA S/O K.C. JAWA - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. MICROMAX HOUSE,2. MICROMAX INFORMATIX LTD.,3. H.S. DISTRIBUTOR,4. OM MOBILE CARE - Opp.Party(s)

HIMANSHU JAWA

05 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.       

 

                                Complaint No.221 of 2014

                                Instituted on:02.09.2014                                              Date of order:17.04.2015

 

Himanshu Jawa  son of Shri KC Jawa Advocate, r/o H.No.89, Double Storey, Sonepat.

..Complainant

                            Versus

 

1.Micromax House Head Office at 90B Sector 18, Gurgaon.

2.Micromax Informatics Ltd., 21/14A, Phase II, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi-110028.

3.HS Distributor, S-13 to 15, Opp. Chambal Power House, Hawa Sadak, City Jaipur.

4.M/s Om Mobile Care, Ground Floor, Nirmal Complex, Purkhas road, Sonepat.

 

..Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

           Respondents ex-parte.

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the

respondents alleging therein that on 13.9.2013 he has  purchased one mobile set through his brother-in-law Amit Setia resident of H.No.806 Sector 14, Sonepat from respondent no.2 for a sum of Rs.13,999/-.  The mobile/handset has been giving major problems since the last 22 days of its purchase.  There was touch hanging problem.  The complainant has submitted his mobile with the service centre and when it was returned, he found that the camera lens was completely broken.  Again the touch pad was not working as it was still used to be hanged and the complainant again deposited the set with the service centre on 30.6.2014.  The complainant made so many visits to the service centre, but they did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant.  On 18.6.2014 the complainant collected his mobile in a very worsened condition,  and he made complaint to the manufacturer, but of no use and ultimately the complainant has to purchase a new black berry Z3 mobile for Rs.15,500/- in compelling circumstances.  The respondents have rendered deficient services to the complainant. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In the present case, the respondents were proceeded against ex-parte.

3.        We have heard the ex-parte arguments advanced by the complainant and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        In the  present complaint, the complainant has submitted that on 10.9.2013 he had purchased a Micromax Mobile through brother-in-law namely Amit Setia resident of H.No.806 Sector 14, Sonepat from respondent no.2 for Rs.13,999/-.  The complainant has submitted that the said mobile set was defective and the defects were not removed by the respondents and as & when the complainant deposited the mobile set with the service centre, it was returned to him in a very worsened condition and due to this, he has purchased a new mobile  set make Black Berry Z3 for Rs.15,500/- in his name vide bill dated 9.7.2014.

          We have perused the case file very carefully.  The bill no.11765 dated 10.9.2013 of the mobile set in dispute is in the name of one Amit Setia and the complainant Himanshu Jawa has filed the present complaint with regard to the defects of the mobile set. Whereas as per bill no.10779 dated 9.7.2014 the complainant Himanshu Jawa has purchased the new mobile worth Rs.15500/- form DEE Mobile Hub, Delhi.

          The complainant has also placed on record the photographs of the defective mobile and job sheet Ex.CW1/9.

          In the present case, opportunities were given to the respondents to come present before this Forum and to defend the case. But the said opportunity has not been availed by the respondents.  Since there is nothing on the case file from the side of the respondents, we have no other option except to allow the present complaint after taking into consideration the pleadings of the complainant.

          Accordingly, we hereby allow the present complaint qua respondents no.1 to 3 with the direction to compensate the complainant  to the tune of Rs.4000/- (Rs.four thousands) and to provide the new mobile set to the complainant upto the price of Rs.18000/-  i.e. after taking into consideration the price of the old/defective mobile as Rs.14000/- plus Rs.4000/- the compensation amount.  We find no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.4. 

          However, the complainant is directed to return the defective mobile set alongwith all its accessories to the respondents no.1 to 3.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to the complainant free of cost and the same be also sent to the respondents no.1 to 3 for information and its strict compliance.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:17.04.2015