BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.04 of 2015

Date of Instt. 08.01.2015

Date of Decision :23.04.2015

Kamaljit Sharma aged about 35 years son of Brij Lal Sharma, R/o H.No.F-1, New Panj Peer Colony, Leather Complex, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Bindra Enterprises, Shop No.12, Guru Nanak Market, Phagwara Gate, Jalandhar.

2. M/s Gopal Service Centre, Shop No.36, Silver Plaza Complex, Opposite Sanjog Palace, Sodal Road, Jalandhar.

3. Micromax House, 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon (Haryana).

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.AS Jammu Adv., counsel for complainant.

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

Opposite parties No.1 and 2 exparte.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased a Micromax Mobile A-94, bearing IMEI No.911343701338891, from the opposite party No.1 on 8.4.2014, vide invoice No.14983 amounting to Rs.8800/-. In the starting of month of October 2014, the complainant faced the problem regarding the non functioning of camera of above said mobile phone. The complainant visited the authorized service centre i.e opposite party No.2 regarding this, then the complainant explained the problem, which he faced in his mobile. Thereafter service engineer of opposite party No.2 sorted out the above said problem. Thereafter complainant again faced the problem on 11.11.2014 i.e non functioning of camera in his mobile phone. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and conveyed the problem to the engineers. The opposite party No.2 told the complainant that they will send his mobile to head office of the company i.e Micromax opposite party No.3 and assured to the complainant that his problem will be sorted out within 7 days. Thereafter the complainant many times visited the office of opposite party No.2 but they did not give any satisfactory answer to the complainant regarding the mobile phone. The complainant requested many times to the opposite party No.2 to return his mobile phone after sorting out the problem. The complainant had also made a telephonic complaint to the opposite party No.3 regarding the deficiency in service by the opposite party No.2 on the number given by the opposite party No.2 i.e 1860500 8286 vide complaint No.MMX2911146067 dated 29.11.2014. On that complaint, the opposite party No.3 assured the complainant that they will remove the defect in his phone or change the phone shortly. Then the opposite party No.2 returned the mobile phone to the complainant on dated 3.12.2014 by saying that the defect in the camera has been sorted out and new camera has been installed in the mobile phone. It is pertinent to mention that on 4.12.2014, the complainant again faced the problem of non functioning of camera in his mobile phone and he again approached to the opposite party No.2 and explained the problem in his mobile phone. But the engineer of opposite party No.2 flatly refused to the complainant by saying that they had already installed the new camera in his phone but neither the defect in phone has been removed nor the new set was given to the complainant till date despite of repeated request and reminder made by the complainant to the opposite party No.2. The complainant again visited the service centre i.e opposite party No.2 to remove the defect in his mobile phone i.e non functioning of camera but the executives of the opposite party No.2 misbehaved with the complainant and told to him that he may well do whatever he want and they will not do anything for his phone. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile handset i.e Rs.8800/- alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice opposite parties No.1 and 2 did not appear and as such they were proceeded against exparte. However, opposite party No.3 appeared through Sh.Manuj Aggarwal Advocate but opposite party No.3 did not file any written statement inspite of repeated opportunities and as such it was debarred from filing any written statement vide order dated 27.3.2015.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed evidence

4. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite party No.3.

5. Complainant purchased the mobile handset in question from opposite party No.1 vide retail invoice dated 8.4.2014 Ex.C1 for Rs.8800/-. According to the complainant in October 2014 i.e during warranty period, he faced problem regarding non functioning of the camera of the mobile handset and he visited service centre i.e opposite party No.2 and its engineers sorted out the problem but again he faced the same problem and gave mobile handset to opposite party No.2 vide job sheet Ex.C2 and opposite party No.2 ultimately returned the mobile handset to the complainant on 3.12.2014 by saying that the defect in the camera has been sorted out and new camera has been installed. According to the complainant, he again faced the same problem on the next day and approached opposite party No.2 but official of opposite party No.2 refused to remove the defect on the ground that they have already installed new camera in his mobile handset. In support of his version, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CA. On the other handset, opposite parties No.1 and 2 have not come present to contest the claim of the complainant. The opposite party No.3 appeared through counsel but did not file any written statement rebutting the allegations of the complainant. So, we have no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted evidence adduced by the complainant and from unrebutted evidence adduced by him, his versions stand proved.

6. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.2 and 3 are directed either to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one of the same make and model or to refund its price to him after receiving old mobile handset and accessories from him. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

23.04.2015 Member Member President