Haryana

Kurukshetra

167/2017

Sandeep - Complainant(s)

Versus

Friends Comm - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

05 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no.167/17.

Date of instt. 17.8.17. 

                                              Date of Decision: 5.2.18.

 

Sandeep Kumar son of Suresh Kumar, resident of village and post office Sanghour, Tehsil Shahbad, District Kurukshetra.

                                        ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. Friends Communication, New Grain Market, Babain, District Kurukshetra, through its proprietor, namely, Gurdeep Singh.
2. M/s Aditya Communication, Shop No.610, Mohan Nagar, Near Aggarsain Chowk, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra.
3. Micromax Informatics Limited Micromax House 90B, Sector-18, Gurgaon, through its authorized signatory/competent person. 

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.              

 

Before               Sh. G.C. Garg, President.    

Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Member  

 Smt. Viraj Pahil, Member

       

Present:        Complainant in person.

 Ops No.1 & 2 ex parte.

 Sh. Sanjiv Walia, Adv. for OP No.3.

ORDER     

 

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Sandeep Kumar against Friends Communication and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a mobile Micromax for a sum of Rs.9,000/- from Op No.1 vide bill No.155 with one year guarantee. At the time of purchase the hand set, the Ops told that the hand set is good quality. Just after 2-3 days the complainant found that there are so many problems in the hand set as some times its battery shows full and after single call the display shows no battery, net work, sim slot etc. The complainant visited the office of Ops several times and requested to replace the hand set but the Ops postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly flatly refused to replace the hand set. Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to replace the hand set with new one and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.

3.             Ops No.1& 2 have failed to come present and as such, they were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 25.9.2017.    

4.            OP No.3 appeared and contested the complaint by way of filing written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts; that the complainant is well conversant with the knowledge of the hand set which was purchased by him; that the hand set is white colour which has all the features i.e. blue tooth, camera and other latest techniques and all the other features are best and nothing has been concealed while purchasing the hand set and the present complaint is false and without any basis. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objections were reiterated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.  

5.            The complainant has tendered in to evidence his own affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, photo stat copy of cash memo as Ex.C1 and photo stat copy of job sheet as Ex.C2 and thereafter closed the evidence. On the other hand, the Ops did not lead any evidence.

6.             We have heard learned counsel parties and have gone through the record carefully.

7.            From the cash memo, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 26.12.2016 for the sale consideration of Rs.9,000/-. From the perusal of Job Sheet Ex.C2 it is clear that the unit became defective on 19.5.2017 i.e. within the warranty/guarantee period. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced from Op No.3, who is manufacture of the unit in question.

8.            In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OP No.3 to replace the hand set of the complainant with new one of the same model.  The complainant is directed deposit the old hand set along with bill and accessories with the service center of the company. The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.3.  File be consigned to record after due compliance.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties.  

Announced:

Dated :5.2.2018                         (G.C.Garg)

                                                  President,

                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                       Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra.

 

 

       

(Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta)   (Viraj Pahil)

  Member                           Member