Haryana

Kurukshetra

19/2018

Rajesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aditya Comm - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Kaushik

12 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.19 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution: 18.01.2018.

                                                     Date of decision: 12.04.2018.

Rajesh S/o Sham Sharma, R/o H.No.511, Sector-30, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Service Centre, Aditya Communication, Aggarsain Chowk, Mohan Nagar, Kurukshetra through its Prop.
2. Micromax Informatics Ltd., House No.697, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana, India, through its Managing Director.
3. Consulting Rooms Pvt. Ltd., House No.37/3, Old Rajender Nagar, near Water Tank, Central Delhi, New Delhi, through its Prop.    

….Respondents.

BEFORE     SH. G.C.Garg, President.

                Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. R.K.Kaushik, Adv. for the complainant.

                Ops exparte.   

               

ORDER

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

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a mobile set make Micromax Company bearing IMEI No.911495356693150 for a sum of Rs.3999/- from the Op No.3 vide cash memo No.FAAP131800233562 dt. 31.07.2017.  It is alleged that from the very beginning, the said mobile set became defective and despite repair of said mobile set several times, the defects were not removed.  The complainant approached the Ops several times for replacement of said mobile set but the Ops did not do so.  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.3999/- as the cost of mobile set to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.4,000/- as litigation charges.

3.            Upon notice, the OPs did not appear and opted to proceed exparte vide order dt. 28.02.2018.

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 ld. counsel for the complainant and perused the record carefully and minutely.

6.             From the cash memo, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 31.07.2017 for the sale consideration of Rs.3999/-.  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.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost.   File be consigned to record after due compliance. 

Announced in open court:

Dt.:12.04.2018.  

                                                                        (G.C.Garg)

                                                                        President.

 

(Kapil Dev Sharma)         

                                        Member