BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.148 of 2015 Date of Institution : 31.8.2015
Date of Decision : 1.12.2016.
Kamaldeep Singh, aged 34 years son of Sh. Balkar Singh, resident of village Abubshahar, Dabwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Deepak Mobile, near Haryana Bus stand, Mandi Dabwali Sirsa, through its Proprietor Deepak.
2. M/s Unitech, 2686, 1st Floor opposite Jagmal Neuro City Scan, old Bus stand, G.T, road, Bathinda (Micromax Service Centre) through Proprietor.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA …………………PRESIDENT
SH.RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. R.S. Randhawa , Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. J.N. Monga, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party no.2 already exparte.
ORDER
The case of the complainant is that on 22.10.2014, he purchased one mobile of Micromax model A 104, fire-2 from opposite party no.1 for Rs.6500/- vide bill dated 22.10.2014 with warranty. The mobile worked for few days and thereafter technical defect occurred in the mobile upon which he approached op no.1 on 23.7.2015 and op no.1 kept his mobile and stated that either they will replace the mobile or repair the same. Then he alongwith op no.1 went to op no.2 and op no.2 also gave same assurances that they will replace the mobile within three days or repair the same and issued job card dated 23.7.2015. The complainant has asked the opposite parties about 10 times since 23.7.2015 either to replace the mobile or repair the same but they are putting off the matter. The complainant is a businessman and is also a farmer and he has suffered a loss of Rs.25,000/- in absence of mobile. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, op no.1 appeared and filed written statement wherein he took preliminary objection that complainant is without cause of action and bad for non joinder of necessary party as the Micromax company has not been impleaded as a party. On merits, the contents of the complaint have been denied in toto. It has been submitted that after the purchase of the mobile, the complainant never came to him at any point of time.
3. Opposite party no.2 did not appear despite issuance of notice through registered cover and was proceeded against exparte.
4. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill and copy of job sheet dated 23.7.2015 Ex.C3. On the other hand, op no.1 tendered his affidavit Ex.RW1/A.
5. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for op No.1 and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The complainant purchased the mobile in question from opposite party no.1 on 22.10.2014 as is evident from copy of bill Ex.C2. The complainant deposited his mobile with opposite party no.2 on 23.7.2015 i.e. during warranty period with problem that power does not switch on as is evident from job sheet Ex.C3 and since then mobile in question is lying with op no.2. Therefore, both the opposite parties are liable to hand over the mobile in question to the complainant without any defect and in proper working condition. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite parties, to return the mobile set in question to the complainant in properly working condition after replacement of defective parts, if any free costs, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both the opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable to comply this order. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:1.12.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
