Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/636

Ankur - Complainant(s)

Versus

J.J.Mehta & Sons - Opp.Party(s)

Miss.Vijay Sharma Adv.

21 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 636 of 21.10.2015

Date of Decision            :   21.03.2016

                              

Ankur s/o Sh.Vinod Bhagat r/o #4283, St.No.11, Near Durga Nagar, Shiva Ji Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.J.J.Mehta & Sons, Prathamesh Complex, Building No.H, Opp.Vatika Restaurant, Mumbai-Nasik Highway No.3, Bhiwandi By-Pass Road, Bhiwandi-421302 Maharastra, India.

2.SP- S.G.Communication, Shop No.6, Pearl Palace, Basement, Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana, Punjab, Pin Code-141001.

3.Head Office, Micromax House, 90-B, Sec-18, Gurgaon, Pin Code 122015.

4.Micromax Office, Plot No.297-F, Phase-8, Industrial Area, Mohali, Punjab, Chandigarh-160059.

 

…Opposite parties

 

                             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :      Ms.Vijay Sharma, Advocate

For OP1 to OP3             :      Ex-parte

For OP4                         :       Complaint stands dismissed as withdrawn vide order

                                             dated 11.02.2016.

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) filed by complainant Mr.Ankur against Ops by claiming that he purchased one mobile phone of model Micromax Canvas Gold A300 having IMEI No.911338900819139 vide invoice No.MH-BOMI-13241721-85896 dated 28.12.2014 for consideration of Rs.13,240/- from OP1. After one month of using of the said mobile phone, the same started emitting troubles of heat up, hanging, auto reboot and screen problems. On approach to the service centre of OPs, updating of the software done, but despite that the same continued to give the same problems. On 14.3.2015, complainant through email approached OPs for discussing the problems. On 9.4.2015, the complainant contacted OPs through email and thereafter, on 10.4.2015, he handed over the mobile set vide job sheet No.N090346-0415-15906888. The set was promised to be returned back on 30.4.2015. Executive explained that they have changed the mother board of the mobile set but without showing any documents. Complainant through email dated 1.5.2015 furnished his contact number for getting reply, but no reply was received and thereafter, complainant got registered a complaint No.MMX0604157585 with office of OPs on 6.4.2015, but nothing happened till 10.4.2015. On 9.4.2015, an email to the service centre of OPs was sent, but complainant got email back from the Ops that his job sheet has been closed. In April 2015, Ops sent an email for seeking apologize for the inconvenience caused to the complainant. On 1.5.2015, Ops sent an email to the complainant for sharing his problem and complainant asked Ops to provide him any Incharge contract number of Punjab. On 6.5.2015, the complainant intimated Ops that he has submitted his mobile with OPs for the last 20 days, but no fruitful result received. On request of Ops, complainant again submitted his mobile on 4.7.2015 through job sheet No.N090346-0715-17732516. Thereafter, in August 2015, the complainant through email contacted Ops for disclosing that despite submission for        6 times, his problems have not been resolved. By pleading deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice by Ops, refund of price amount of Rs.13,240/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- claimed. It is further claimed that despite sending legal notice dated 9.9.2015 through counsel, Ops have not paid heed to the genuine requests of the complainant and that is why this complaint.

2.                Complaint against Op4 was withdrawn by counsel for the complainant by suffering statement on 11.02.2016 and as such, complaint against OP4 was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.02.2016. Remaining Ops i.e. Op1 to OP3 did not appear despite service and as such, they were proceeded against ex-parte.

3.                Complainant to prove his case, tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C22 and thereafter, counsel for the complainant closed the evidence.

4.                Oral arguments heard and records gone through minutely.

5.                Contents of affidavit Ex.CA as well as of sent legal notice Ex.C1 along with that of invoice Ex.C3 establishes that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question through online for Rs.13,240/- through OP1. That phone belongs to Micromax company owned by OP3, of which OP2 is the service centre. Job sheets Ex.C7 dated 4.4.2015; Ex.C9 dated 10.4.2015 and Ex.C16 dated 4.7.2015 has been produced on record by the complainant to show that the purchased mobile set suffered problems of power switch off, display blank, battery over heating etc. So, all this documentary evidence produced on record duly corroborate the case of the complainant that he faced the problems referred in the job sheets within 4 months of its purchase.

6.                Even email correspondences produced on record as Ex.C2, Ex.C4 to Ex.C6, Ex.C8 and Ex.C10 to Ex.C15 as well as Ex.C17 to Ex.C22 establishes that complaints about the above referred problems were lodged by the complainant with OPs, but the problems remained un-resolved. Sometimes email correspondences sent by the complainant remained un-responded also is a fact borne  from perusal of email letters. As mobile set purchased by the complainant required to be free from defects, but the pointed out defects remained un-resolved, despite numerous approaches by the complainant to the OPs and as such, certainly there is deficiency in service on the part of OP1 to OP3.  Complainant  had  to  suffer mentally       due to non functioning of the mobile set and as such, for this mental harassment, compensation of Rs.1000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1000/- should be allowed. OP1 to OP3 directed to replace the mobile handset in question with new one   within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. However, in case, compliance of these directions not made, then OP1 to OP3 will be liable to refund the cost price of hand set namely Rs.13,240/- to the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

7.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed ex-parte in terms that OP1 to OP3 will replace the mobile handset in question with new one within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order and in case, OP1 to OP3 remained unable to replace the handset in this period of 30 days, then Op1 to OP3 will be liable to refund cost price of the handset namely Rs.13,240/- to the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Compensation of Rs.1000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP1 to OP3 only. That amount be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. 

8.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Sat Paul Garg)                            (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                        President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:21.03.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.