Haryana

Kurukshetra

174/2017

Deepak Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aditya COmm - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

08 Mar 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.174 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 21.08.2017.

                                                     Date of decision: 08.03.2018.

Deepak Sharma, Advocate, aged 29 years, son of Sh. Raj Kishan, resident of House No.746, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. M/s. Aditya Communication, Shop No.610, Mohan Nagar, near Aggarsain Chowk, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra, through its Manager.
2. Micromax House, 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana, India, through its Managing Director.
3. AMAZON, SAAR K L 145, Kavinagar, Gaziabad-201002, Uttar Pradesh, through its Managing Director.    

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

       

Present:     Complainant in person.

                Sh. Sanjiv Walia, Adv. for the Op No.2. 

                Ops No.1 & 3 exparte.   

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Deepak Sharma against M/s. Aditya Communication and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a mobile set make Micromax Company, model Micromax Canvas Evok (E483) for a sum of Rs.8490/- on 02.09.2016 vide invoice No.SNP06341 from the Op No.2 through Op No.3 vide order No.171-3438973-296148 dt. 01.09.2016.  It is alleged that just after three months of its purchase, the said mobile set became defective with the problems “touching, on and off system and hanging etc.”, so, in the last week of December, 2016, the complainant approached the Op No.1 regarding the defective mobile set, where the engineer of the Ops checked the mobile set of complainant and handed over the same to the complainant with the assurance that the said mobile set will work properly but just after two months, the said mobile set again started to show the same problems.  It is further alleged that despite repairs of said mobile set many times by the Ops, the defects from the mobile set were not removed by the Ops.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to replace the mobile set with the new one or to return Rs.8490/- as the cost of mobile set to the complainant alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.21,000/- as litigation charges.

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.3 did not appear and opted to proceed exparte vide order dt. 04.10.2017, whereas initially Op No.1 appeared in person and did not appear on 17.11.2017, so, the Op No.1 was also proceeded exparte vide order dt. 17.11.2017.  Op No.2 appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; estoppel; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  In fact, the mobile set of complainant is O.K. and there is no problem in the said mobile set.  The complainant has the only intention to replace his mobile set with the new one.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and document Ex.C1 and thereafter closed the evidence.    

5.             We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

6.             From the cash memo, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 02.09.2016 for the sale consideration of Rs.8490/-.  The complainant has supported his versions by filing his affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and copy of cash memo, Ex.C1.  In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced with the new one from the Op No.2, who is manufacturer of mobile set.

7.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OP No.2 to replace the hand set of the complainant with the new one of the same model.  The complainant is directed to deposit the old hand set along with bill and accessories with the service center of the company.  The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.2.  File be consigned to record after due compliance.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties.  

Announced in open court:

Dt.:08.03.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member