BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.421 of 2014

Date of Instt. 28.11.2014

Date of Decision :07.04.2015

Jinder @ Harjinder Singh son of Tara Singh R/o h.No.BX-1228 Lamba Road, Teh.&Distt.Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd, through its Prop. Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar.

2. M/s Gopal Telecom through its Prop., EH-198, Shop No.2(GF), Civil Lines, GT Road, Near Gujarat Palace, Jalandhar.

3. M/s Micromax House, Head Office, 90B, Sector-18, Gurgaon, Haryana-122015.

.........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.Harmesh Manav Adv., counsel for complainant.

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

Opposite parties No.1 & 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 bought a micromax mobile A114 vide 911343500205770 for Rs.10,300/- on dated 2.1.2014 against invoice 52523 from opposite party No.1. Around about 16.7.2014 the above detailed mobile got some manufacturing defects and stop to work. This mobile has warranty of one year from the date of purchase. The complainant approached to opposite party No.2 as same is mobile service station for the micromax company on dated 16.7.2014 and informed about the defect in the mobile. Then the opposite party No.2 could not repair mobile but he replaced the defective mobile with another old mobile and mentioned the IMEI of the replaced mobile by cutting the IMEI of the original mobile on the sale receipt. The replaced old mobile also stopped to work after one day. On this the complainant once again approached to the opposite party No.2 and informed the problem with the mobile. On this the opposite party No.2 gave an offer of one another old mobile to replace the defective mobile which the complainant refused to take as the offered mobile was very old whereas the mobile of the complainant was just about six months old. The complainant requested the opposite party No.2 to either repair his first time purchased mobile or give him the second hand mobile, in full working condition equivalent to his first time purchased mobile but the opposite party No.2 neither repaired the purchased mobile nor replaced the mobile inspite of fact that the mobile was/is in warranty period. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party no.2 to repair the mobile to his full satisfaction or to replace it with the second hand mobile in full working condition or with new one. In the alternative he has demanded refund of the price of the mobile handset in question. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

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

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.A to Ex.G and closed evidence.

4. Opposite party No.3 has not led any evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by the complainant.

5. 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.

6. The complainant purchased the handset in question from opposite party No.1 vide retail invoice dated 2.1.2014 Ex.A for Rs.10,300/-. According to the complainant around 16.7.2014 during warranty period, the mobile stop working as there was some manufacturing defect in it and he visited opposite party No.2 but he replaced the mobile in question with one old mobile mentioning its IMEI number on the retail invoice but the second hand mobile given by opposite party No.2 also stop working after one day. Further according to the complainant he again approached opposite party No.2 i.e service centre who offered to give some other old mobile which he refused to accept as the same was very old. Further according to the complainant, the opposite party No.2 has neither repaired the mobile nor replaced it although it was in warranty period. In support of his version, the complainant has filed his affidavit. He has also placed on record service job sheet Ex.C. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 have not come present to contest the claim of the complainant. However, opposite party No.3 appeared but did not file any written statement rebutting the allegations of the complainant. So we have no reason to disbelieve unrebutted version of the complainant.

7. Consequently, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.2 and 3 are directed either to repair the mobile handset of the complainant to his satisfaction and deliver him the same within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order or to refund its price to him. The complainant is also awarded Rs.2000/- 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

07.04.2015 Member Member President