BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.370 of 2014

Date of Instt. 21.10.2014

Date of Decision :02.02.2015

Kamal Kumar, aged about 39 years son of Late Mohinder Pal Kashyap, Moh.No.8, H.No.20, Jalandhar Cantt.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. A-One Mobile Shop, 25/41, Sadar Bazar, Jalandhar Cantt, through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Representative.

2. M/s Gopal Telecom, EH-198, Shop No.2(GF), Civil Lines, Near Gujarat Palace, Jalandhar-144001,through its Prop./ Partner/ Authorized Representative.

3. Micromax Informatic Ltd, 21/14A, Phase-II, Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi-110028, through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Representative.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Manuj Aggarwal Adv., counsel for OP No.3.

Opposite party No.2 exparte.

Opposite party No.1 give up.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased a mobile phone model Micromax Bolt A-67 for Rs.5000/- from opposite party No.1 vide bill No.463 dated 3.3.2014. After one month from the date of purchase i.e 3.3.2014 the said mobile phone became out of order. Its flash light continued on. The complainant brought the above defect into the notice of opposite party No.1 who advised the complainant to approach their service centre/opposite party No.2. It is alleged that complainant approached opposite party no.2 but it failed to rectify the defects in the mobile handset. On 27.8.2014 the said mobile handset again became out of order. Its camera became bad image. The complainant again handed over the defective mobile handset to opposite party No.2 who kept the same with them after checking and gave a job sheet dated 27.8.2014. The complainant requested the opposite party No.2 either to replace the mobile phone or repair it satisfactorily but the opposite party No.2 refused saying that the said mobile handset can neither be repaired satisfactorily nor can be replaced. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the defective handset with new one with fresh warranty or to return its price alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite party No.3 appeared through Sh.Manuj Aggarwal Advocate, who made a statement on 27.1.2015 to the effect that opposite party No.3 is ready to give the price of the mobile handset i.e Rs.5000/- to the complainant within 10 days without prejudice to their right and without admitting any of the allegation of the complainant. He further stated that opposite party No.3 is not to file any written reply.

3. Opposite party No.2 did not appear inspite of notice and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. Opposite party No.1 was given-up by the complainant.

5. The complainant lead evidence and thereafter he made a statement that he agree to accept Rs.5000/-, the price of the mobile handset in full and final settlement of his claim.

6. So in view of statement made by complainant and learned counsel for opposite party No.3, the complaint is accepted against opposite party No.3 and it is directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% P.A. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

02.02.2015 Member President