BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, HISAR
Consumer Complaint no. 206 of 14
Date of Institution : 20.05.2014
Date of Decision : 05.02.2015
Narsi Ram, age 34 years son of Shri Sheo Narain, resident of VPO Sadalpur, Tehsil Mandi Adampur, District Hisar.
..Complainant.
Versus
- Hotspot Spice Retail Ltd. 113, Greed Square Market, Hisar through its proprietor.
- M./s Global Communication, Green Square Market, shop No.259 (First Floor), Near Aggarsain Bhawan, Hisar through its Proprietor.
- Micromax Informatics Ltd., 21/14A. Phase-II, Narain Industrial Area, Delhi-110028 through its authorized Signatory.
..Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI VINOD JAIN, PRESIDENT
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Narsi Ram-Complainant in person.
None for OP No.1.
Sh.R.C.Bhardwaj, counsel for Ops No.2 & 3.
ORDER
Briefly, case of complainant is that on 16.6.2013, he had purchased one mobile telephone hand set of Canvas 2 A-110 for Rs.10,500/- from Hot spot Spice i.e. from opposite party No.1. That after some time of its purchase, the mobile hand set developed some different problems regarding defective charging, frequent hanging defective display light etc. He went to opposite party No.1, who referred him to the customer care centre i.e. to opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.3 is the manufacturing company of the mobile hand set. On 26.2.2014, he handed over the mobile hand set to the service centre, which was returned to him after 10-12 days. It is averred in this complaint that even then the mobile hand set did not function, properly, so again on 13.5.2014, he went to the service centre, when it was kept and he was asked to come after about 25 days to collect it. But without waiting for it, he brought it from the service centre just after 2 days. It is alleged that the mobile hand set is still not in proper working order; hence, this complaint, filed on 20.5.2014; for a direction to the opposite parties, either for replacement of the mobile hand set or in alternative, for the refund of its price of Rs.10,500/- with upto date interest, besides damages for his harassment and litigation expenses.
2. Opposite parties No. 2 & 3 filed joint reply and contested the case of the complainant.
3. In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C-1 copy of sale invoice of the mobile hand set dated 16.6.2013; Ex.C-2 copy of job sheet dated 13.5.2014 and Ex.C-3 his own supporting affidavit .
4. In reply thereto, opposite parties have simply placed on record Ex.R-1 supporting affidavit of Sh.Pawan Kumar, Proprietor of opposite party No.2.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard ld. Counsels for the parties.
6. As per aforesaid evidence on record, it is proved that the complainant had gone to the customer service centre on 13.5.2014, with complaints in the mobile hand set regarding touch screen and auto charging etc. There is also nothing to discredit his case, that even prior to it he had made his complaint dated 26.2.2014. It means that he had to go to the service centre twice. Firstly, the mobile hand set was returned, after repair but it was not functioning properly, and that is why he had to go the center again. But we do not find any merit in the case of the complainant that it has some manufacturing or major defect in it as according to the complainant himself, he had brought the mobile hand set from the service centre only after 2-3 days of his complaint dated 13.5.2014 when he was regard to take it after about 25 days after repair. In order to get replacement of mobile hand set, it is incumbent upon the complainant to prove that mobile hand set is having some manufacturing defect or it is not repairable. Therefore, contention of the complainant for replacement of the mobile hand set is not tenable.
7. Although the warranty of mobile hand set has already expired, but in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, to our mind, ends of justice would meet in case mobile hand set in question, is required to be examined and repair by service centre if it repairable.
8. At the same time it is very clear that during the period of warranty, complainant could not enjoy the mobile hand set as he had to take it to the service centre twice. The opposite parties are supposed to give mobile hand set in properly working order and if there is any defect in it, then to immediately repair it, and free of cost if it is within the period of warranty. Since it is not so in the case in hand so there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
9. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite parties, to repair the mobile hand set in question, if it is repairable free of cost. For it the complainant has to approach the service centre, within a period of 15 days, from today. Complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.2000/- for his harassment and litigation expenses of Rs.550/-, against the opposite parties, who shall be jointly and severely liable to comply the order.
Announced in open court:
Dated:05.02.2015 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Hisar.
Member/5.2.2015.
