BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.133 of 2015

Date of Instt. 30.03.2015

Date of Decision :06.07.2015

Rakesh Kumar aged about 30 years son of Charn Dass R/o Moh.Shah Sultan, Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Jagdambay Mobile House through its Owner, Near Dolphin Hotel, Jail Road, Opp.Old Sabzi Mandi, Jalandhar City-144001.

2. Micromax through its authorized service centre, Shree Communications, Shop No.5, GS Bajwa Complex, Opp. Friends Bakery, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar City.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Navdeep Sethi Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Akash Batra, Auth.Rep. for opposite party No.2.

Opposite party No.1 exparte.

Order

Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant purchased one mobile set of Micromax company bearing IMEI No.911306900124370 named "Micromax Allo Black" from opposite party No.1, Jagdambay Mobile House on 6.4.2013 vide bill No.16990 and paid Rs.11500/- with one year warranty to the mobile set and six months warranty for the battery. After 10-15 days it was noticed that the mobile set was not working properly and showing defect in touch screen and in buttons. Complainant approached the opposite party No.1 for checking the same and in turn opposite party No.1 took the mobile from complainant and gave assurance to the complainant to provide new set after one week, if the opposite party No.1 failed to redress the grievance of the complainant. After one week complainant approached the opposite party No.1 on his shop. The opposite party No.1 returned the same mobile and assured the complainant that the mobile is working well and all the defects have been removed. He also gave assurance to give good service for future problem, if any. In the month of May again the mobile created more problems on On-off Switch, volume button, battery backup etc. In this way, opposite party No.1 sold a defective mobile set to complainant knowingly and intentionally and received huge amount of Rs.11500/.- causing loss to the complainant. Then again complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and requested him to change the mobile set. On this opposite party No.1 annoyed and refused to change the set and also refused to return the amount of mobile. On this complainant argued with the opposite party No.1 for selling him a defective mobile and also showed him warranty conditions on the back side of the bill, only then opposite party No.1 gave an address of Shree Communications, an authorized service centre of Micromax company, which is opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 also made a telephone call to the office of opposite party No.2 and again assured the complainant that he will manage all things and advised the complainant to go to the office of opposite party No.2. The complainant has no other option except to got check the mobile from opposite party No.2 an authorized service centre. The opposite party No.2 took the mobile alongwith its box and a photocopy of bill which was given by the opposite party No.1 for checking the same and told the complainant to come again after one week. After ten days, complainant again approached at the office of the opposite parties No.1 and 2, but they have not returned the mobile set and told the complainant to come again. It is pertinent to mention that opposite party No.2 intentionally and knowingly issued a wrong job card to the complainant which was filled by the official of the opposite party No.2. When complainant tried to inquire about the job card and also ask the reason for not issuing it first time. On this officials of the opposite party No.2 scolded the complainant and refused to change any mobile set. Finding no other way, complainant through his counsel served a legal notice dated 18.9.2013 upon the opposite parties and the opposite parties have received the said legal notice vide acknowledgment dated 27.9.2013 but to no effect. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the cost of the mobile handset i.e Rs.11,500/- alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon, notice opposite party No.2 appeared through its authorized representative Sh.Akash Batra and filed a written reply pleading that the mobile phone which the complainant purchased from opposite party No.1 is out of warranty. This fact is clearly mentioned in the job sheet card and the same was water locked(logged). However, the opposite party No.2 is ready to repair it against repair and part charges.

3. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 did not appear and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/7 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, Sh.Akash Batra, Authorized Representative of opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant and authorized representative of opposite party No.2.

7. The complainant purchased the mobile handset in question from opposite party No.1 vide retail invoice dated 6.4.2013 Ex.CW1/1 for Rs.11,500/-. According to the complainant, after purchase, the mobile handset developed defect and he deposited the same with opposite party No.2 i.e service centre vide service job sheet Ex.CW1/2. On the other hand, according to opposite party No.2, the mobile handset of the complainant was water logged and as such was out of warranty and that it is ready to repair the mobile handset on payment of necessary charges. Ex.CW1/2 is service job sheet produced by the complainant himself. In the job sheet, it is specifically mentioned that mobile handset was water logged. On the job sheet OW i.e out of warranty is also mentioned. In case of water logging i.e physical damage, the mobile handset is not covered under warranty. However, at the time of arguments, Sh.Akash Batra, authorized representative of opposite party No.2 stated at bar that as a gesture of good will, the opposite party No.2 will repair the mobile handset of the complainant free of any charges.

7. So, in the above circumstances, the present complaint is disposed off with the directions to opposite party No.2 to repair the mobile handset of the complainant without taking any charges from him. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost or compensation. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

06.07.2015 Member Member President