BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.25 of 2016

Date of Instt. 12.01.2016

Date of Decision :16.05.2016

Pankaj Kumar aged about 26 years son of Satpal, through its attorney Satpal son of Devi Dass R/o H.No1, Gali No.1, New Amar Nagar, Gulab Devi Road, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd., Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar through its Director/Manager/Authorized Representative.

2. Gopal Service Centre, Shop No.36, Silver Plaza Complex, Sodal Road, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Representative MrPrince, at present 75/2, Guru Nanak Nagar, Near Sports College, Jalandhar.

3. Micromax House, 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon (Haryana), through its Director/Partner/Authorized Representative.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Opposite parties exparte.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (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 complainant purchased Micromax mobile phone from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 2.12.2014 for a sum of Rs.13,750/- with warranty of one year. Complainant submitted that the said mobile set became out of order having defect with its battery which was not charging. Complainant handed over the mobile set to OP No.2 authorized service centre of OP No.3 on 28.8.2015. OP No.2 told the complainant to take the mobile set after one month, when complainant approached the OP No.2 for delivery of repaired mobile set after one month, the OP told the complainant to come after further 25 days as the mobile set could not be repaired. When the complainant approached after 25 days, the OP No.2 did not hand over the repaired mobile set to the complainant. Rather they stated that the mobile is not repairable. It requires replacement and when the complainant approached the OP No.2 for replacement of the mobile set, the OP refused to replace the mobile set. OPs No.2 & 3 neither repaired the mobile set of the complainant nor replaced the same with new one. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one or to refund its price. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Notice of this complaint was given to the OPs but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

3. In support of his complaint, attorney of complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence.

4. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the complainant, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by complainant with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsel for the complainant.

5. From the averments of the complaint and the evidence produced on record by the complainant, it stands fully proved on record that complainant purchased Micromax mobile phone from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 2.12.2014 Ex.C2 for sum of Rs.13,750/- with warranty of one year. Complainant submitted that the said mobile set became out of order having defect with its battery which was not charging. Complainant handed over the mobile set to OP No.2 i.e. authorized service centre of OP No.3 on 28.8.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C3. OP No.2 told the complainant to take the mobile set after one month when complainant approached the OP No.2 for delivery of repaired mobile set after one month, the OP told the complainant to come after further 25 days as the mobile set could not be repaired. When the complainant approached after 25 days, the OP No.2 did not hand over the repaired mobile set to the complainant. Rather they stated that the mobile is not repairable. It requires replacement and when the complainant approached the OP No.2 for replacement of the mobile set, the OP refused to replace the mobile set. OPs No.2 & 3 neither repaired the mobile set of the complainant nor replaced the same with new one. Complainant proved the averments of his complaint through his affidavit Ex.CA and also proved on record the documents i.e. invoice dated 2.12.2014 Ex.C2 and job sheet dated 28.8.2015 Ex.C3. The evidence produced on record by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged as none appeared on behalf of the OPs despite proper service, to contest the complaint filed by the complainant nor any person from the OPs dared to file affidavit to rebut the evidence produced by the complainant. So, we are of the opinion that the mobile set of the complainant is not repairable as the same has been lying with OP No.2 since 28.8.2015 as per job sheet Ex.C3 and they failed to repair the mobile set nor returned the same to the complainant. Therefore, OPs NO.2 & 3 are liable to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same make and model.

6. Resultantly, we allow the complaint exparte with cost and OPs No.2 & 3 are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same make and model or in the alternative to refund the price amount of the mobile set i.e. Rs.13,750/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which OPs No.2 & 3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. OPs No.2 & 3 are also directed to pay Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

16.05.2016 Member President