BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 62 of 2016 Date of Institution : 19.2.2016
Date of decision : 7.3.2017
Surjeet Singh, aged about 32 years son of Shri Gurdev Singh, resident of House No.67, Ajay Vihar Colony, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Arora Electronics, Barnala Road, Sirsa, through its Proprietor/ partner.
2. M/S Shree Communication, Jain Market, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its Incharge/ Manager.
3. Micromax Mobiles, Micromax Informatics Ltd. 21/14A, Phase-II, Naraina, Industrial Area, Delhi-110028, through its Managing Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA …………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. I.P. S. Fazil, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
Sh. Ravinder Monga, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 &3.
ORDER
Case of complainant in brief is that he purchased a mobile of micromax company model Q392, Convas JUICE-3 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.9000/- vide bill No.3984 dated 27.10.2015. On 13.12.2015, the above said mobile was burst during charging due to which he suffered serious injuries on his fingers and bed sheet was also badly damaged. Due to blast, his entire family came under serious fear and suffered serious shock. Since then the complainant is requesting the ops and making rounds to them for replacement of the mobile due to manufacturing defect but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, op no.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement to the effect that op no.1 only sold the mobile to the complainant and op no.1 cannot be held liable for any kind of manufacturing defect in the mobile. It has been further submitted that after purchase of mobile, complainant never approached to op no.1.
3. Ops no.2 & 3 filed written version and submitted that op no.2 found that due to tampering with the mobile set, the same was burnt and it was disclosed to complainant that due to his own negligence it was burnt but in view of the policy of the manufacturing company, the matter may be referred to the company for necessary action. But the complainant was not ready to hear any request of answering ops rather he gave only two options either to replace the mobile immediately or to refund the amount. The op no.2 personally contacted with the manufacturing company and explained the situation which had advised to send the mobile for final approval/ decision but complainant did not turn up nor he gave any positive response.
4. Thereafter, op no.1 opted to proceed against exparte.
5. The complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.C1 and newspaper Ex.C2. Ops No.2 & 3 produced affidavit Ex.R1.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. There is no dispute that complainant purchased the mobile set in question from op no.1 on 27.10.2015 for a sum of Rs.9000/-. There is also no dispute that above said mobile was burnt on 13.12.2015 i.e. within a short period of about one and half month of its purchase and there is nothing on file to suggest that mobile in question was burnt due to any negligence of complainant. In our considered view, the complainant is entitled for a new mobile from the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is hereby allowed with a direction to the opposite parties either to provide a new mobile of the same description and same price to the complainant or to refund the price of mobile in question within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:7.3.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
