BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 172 of 2015
Date of Institution : 1.10.2015
Date of decision : 27.2.2017
Kunal, aged about 28 years son of Shri Suresh Kumar, resident of Gali Karkhana Wali, Begu Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Deol Mobile’s, Shiv Chowk, Circular Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its Proprietor/ partner.
2. Shree Communication, Jain Market, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, through its Incharge/ Manager.
3. Micromax House, 90B, Sector 18, Gurgaon-122015, Haryana through its Managing Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA …………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.G.K. Saraf, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
Sh. Ravinder Monga, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 &3.
ORDER
Case of complainant in brief is that he purchased a mobile handset make Micromax Model A-350 Knight for Rs.14,400/- from opposite party no.1 vide bill No.154 dated 23.12.2014 with guarantee of one year against all types of manufacturing defects. That just after few months of purchase, the complainant found that suddenly the touch screen of the mobile stopped working. Therefore, he approached the op no.1 on 9.6.2015, at whose instance he took it to op no.2. OP no.2 kept the mobile and issued job sheet no.1500 dated 9.6.2015 and assured the complainant that he will get his mobile handset back in proper working condition or same will be replaced with new one within 21 days. It is further averred that after lapse of one month, the complainant again contacted the op no.2 on 9.7.2015 at which time op no.2 issued him another online job sheet of op no.3 bearing No.N060180-0715-17835627 dated 9.7.2015 with his inability that mobile handset is still lying with op no.3 and op no.2 will provide the handset to the complainant very soon. Then after lapse of 43 days on 22.8.2015, the op no.2 again issued another job sheet dated 22.8.2015 and asked him to contact to op no.3 on toll free number. The complainant registered a complaint on toll free number of op no.3 on 25.8.2015 but did not receive any response from ops and mobile set is with the ops. Hence, this complaint for a direction to the ops to replace the mobile with new one or to refund the price of the mobile alongwith interest and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment.
2. On notice, none appeared on behalf of op no.1 despite service and as such op no.1 was proceeded against exparte.
3. Opposite parties No.2 & 3 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It has also been submitted that the manufacturing company never gave assurance of guarantee as alleged by complainant. The prevailing word is warranty with a stipulated period subject to terms and conditions of the manufacturing company. The complaint lodged by the complainant is only because of rough us, despite having knowledge that defect was removed with full satisfaction. In fact, after lodging direct complaint on toll free number on 25.8.2015, the mater was put up by the manufacturing company and considering the inconvenience caused to the complainant decided to replace his mobile with upgraded features. The answering ops put the offer to the complainant for receiving the upgraded mobile known as E-471 but the complainant refused to accept the offer.
4. By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of cash/ credit memo dated 23.12.2014 Ex.C2, copy of job sheet dated 9.6.2015 Ex.C3, copy of job sheet dated 9.7.2015 Ex.C4, copy of job sheet dated 22.8.2015 Ex.C5, copy of salary certificate Ex.C6 and copy of aadhar card Ex.C7. On the other hand, ops No.2 & 3 produced affidavit Ex.R1.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. It is established on record that complainant purchased the mobile in question from opposite party no.1 on 23.12.2014 for huge amount of Rs.14,400/- as is evident from copy of cash/credit memo Ex.C2. From the own affidavit of the complainant as well as from copies of job cards, it is also proved that the mobile set was handed over by the complainant to the Service Centre with defect of touch screen but till the date of filing of complaint and even thereafter the ops have failed to return the handset after making it defect free or to replace the same with new one. The mobile in question is lying with ops since 9.6.2015 and now in their written statement the ops have averred that answering ops put the offer to the complainant for receiving the upgraded mobile but there is nothing on file to show that any such offer was ever given to the complainant. The ops are liable either to replace the mobile with new one or to refund the price of the mobile in question to the complainant.
7. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite parties either to hand over a new replaced mobile set to the complainant of the same price and same description with fresh warranty otherwise to refund its price i.e. Rs.14,400/- to the complainant within a period 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. All the ops shall be jointly and severally liable to comply this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:27.2.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
