BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Complaint Case no.103 of  2017     

                                                          Date of Institution:          12.05.2017

                                                          Date of Decision:     9.11.2017

Sarvesh Kumar son of Sh. Man Singh aged 26 years, resident of Shanti Nagar, Gali No.9, Ward No.11,  Begu Road, Sirsa.

                                                                                  ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

1.B.K Enterprises, Banti Communication, Shop No.25, Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa(Haryana) through its authorized person.

2.M/s Shree Communication Jain Market, Sadar Bazar, Near Masjid Sirsa, Haryana Pincode:-125055 through its authorized.

3. Micromax Company, Micromax House, 90B, Sector-18, Gurgaon-122015 through its authorized person.

                              ……… Opposite parties.

          Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT

       SMT. RAJNI GOYAT………………… MEMBER

                   SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.

Present:           Complainant in person with Sh. R.S. Sara, Advocate for complainant.

         Opposite parties no. 1 to 3 exparte.

ORDER

          In brief, case of complainant is that the complainant purchased an micromax mobile bearing model No. micromax XO72 from op no.3 i.e. Company on 03.06.2016 for a sum of Rs.950/-. On 03.06.2016 date the micromax mobile was delivered to the complainant and a receipt bearing No.552 for the payment was given by op no.1. the micromax mobile thereafter developed certain fault for which repeated complaints were made to the opposite party. However, the opposite party made no effort to rectify the faults. Due to the negligent acts of the ops, the complainant has suffered loss and injury due to deprivation, harassment, mental agony and loss of professional practice, for which he is entitled to compensation. Deficiency of service was made by the ops. Ops are liable for breach of contract as they have not complied with the terms of the guarantee and have acted extremely negligently in attending to the complaint of the complainant and are therefore liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and injury caused to him. Hence this complaint.  

2.                On notice, initially opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement asserting therein that answering op sold mobile to the complainant for Rs.950/- in a sealed condition which was received by him from the manufacturing company i.e. op no.3. Remaining contents of the complaint have been denied.

3.                Opposite parties no.2 and 3 did not appear despite notices and were proceeded against exparte. It is also pertinent to mention here that after filing of written statement by op no.1, none appeared on behalf of op no.1 and therefore, op no.1 was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.10.2017.   

4.                The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.CW2/A, copy of jobsheet of dated 09.06.2016 Ex.CW3/A.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have perused the case file carefully.

6.                The perusal of the record reveals that complainant in order to prove his case has filed an affidavit in which, he deposed that he has purchased the micromax mobile for the sum of Rs.950/- on 03.06.2016 and the mobile was delivered by the op no.1 to him for the payment which was given to op no.1. The mobile developed certain fault for which repeated complaints were made to the opposite parties. The micromax mobile has a warranty for period of one year. He has placed on record the receipts i.e. Ex.CW2/A and Ex.CW3/A. So it is proved on record that the complainant has purchased the micromax mobile for the sum of Rs.950/- and it had developed some defect and was not working. The Ex.CW3/A reveals that there was a warranty of repair of the mobile. But since the ops did not put their appearance and were proceeded against exparte vide order of different dates, so evidence led by the complainant as goes unchallenged and unrebutted.

6.                In view of the above discussion, we hereby allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the opposite parties to carry out the necessary repair of the mobile even by replacing any part of the mobile without any cost within 15 days from the receipt of the copy of order and also direct to pay a sum of Rs.400/- as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with the order.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs.   File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum.    Member      Member            President,

Dated:9.11.2017.                                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                            Redressal Forum, Sirsa.