O R D E R
SHAHINA, MEMBER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased one Micromax Canvas Duet phone for a sum of Rs.15,800/- from the OP-1 on 24.5.2014. The complainant has alleged that the said mobile phone was not working and the same was deposited with OP-2 on 10.6.2014. The complainant has alleged the mobile phone was returned to the complainant on 14.7.2014 but the said mobile phone still did not function properly and was again submitted with OP-2 on 17.7.2014. Since then the mobile phone is with OP-2. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service and sought the replacement of mobile handset or refund of the cost of mobile handset paid by him. The complainant has also claimed a sum of Rs.40,800/- as compensation towards harassment, hardship and humiliations and Rs.25,000/- as litigation cost.
2. Notice was given to the OPs and OP-1 filed written statement in response to the complaint. In the written statement OP-1 admitted the sale of mobile phone to the complainant. He further denied any liability for the after sale service on the ground that the cash memo clearly states that after sale warranty is of the Company Service Centre. But after that on 30.10.2014, none appeared on behalf of OP, therefore OP was proceeded Ex-parte on 7.1.2016. The complainant has filed their evidences and the affidavit but OPs have not filed any document except written statement of OP-1.
3. We have gone through the pleadings as well as affidavit and other documents filed by the complainant. Although there is a note on the bottom of the cash memo regarding no liability after sale but OPs cannot escape the liability of providing standard goods to its customers. It is apparent from the record that the mobile phone was purchased on 25.04.2014 and the same was deposited with the OP-2 on 10.06.2014. The mobile phone has not so far been returned by the OP-2. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that OPs have sold defective product to the complainant and are also deficient in service.
4. We, therefore, direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.15,800/-which was the cost of mobile phone and complainant is also awarded a sum of Rs.1500/- as compensation for harassment which shall also include cost of litigation. Ordered accordingly.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced on this 04th day of March, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) ( SHAHINA)
President Member Member
