DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.
Complaint No. CC/15/ 121 of 09/06/2015
Decided on 21/08/2015
Gurwinder Singh, aged about 30 years S/o Sh. Som Singh R/o VPO Lang, Tehsil and District Patiala.
….Complainant.
Versus
1. Jain Communication, Shop no.2, Main Bazar, Ranjit Nagar, Seona Road, Patiala, through its Prop.
2. Micromax House, 90-B, Sector-18, Gurgaon through its Managing Director.
3. M/s Ganesh Electricals, 37-C, Mansahia Colony, Near 21 No. Phatak, Railway Road, Patiala through its Manager.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the
Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
Smt. Sonia Bansal, Member
Present:
For Complainant : Sh. Sunil Kumar Garg Adv.
For Opposite party no. 2 & 3 : Ex-parte.
ORDER
NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER:
1. The complainant purchased one Micromax mobile phone, Model Canvas Knight A290 from Op no.1 for a sum of Rs.9400/- vide invoice no.541 dt. 26/01/2015. It is averred that in month of March, 2015 the said mobile phone stopped working smoothly and the complainant approached OP no.1 who directed the complainant to approach the service centre of the company i.e. OP no.3. Accordingly, the complainant approached OP no.3 who after rectifying the defect returned the mobile phone to the complainant. But the mobile phone was not fully functional and the complainant again deposited the mobile phone with OP no.3 vide job sheet dt. 29/04/2015. OP no.3 told the complainant that there was some manufacturing defect in the mobile phone. The problem reported on the job sheet was cosmetic worn, charging/ battery- No charging. The complainant made various requests to OP no.3 for the replacement of the mobile phone with a new one, but OP no.3 kept on lingering on the matter under one pretext or the other. On 25/5/2015, the complainant lodged a complaint at the company's email address i.e.
2. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against OP no.2 and 3 only, who failed to appear despite service & were thus proceeded against ex-parte.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his sworn affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and his counsel closed the evidence.
4. Ex.C-1 is the copy of the Invoice whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone from OP no.1 on 26/1/2015. Ex.C-2 is the job sheet dt. 29/4/2014, whereby the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP no.3. The problem mentioned in the job sheet is 4602 cosmetic worn, 5301 charging/ Battery- No charging. After depositing the mobile phone with OP no.3, the complainant made several requests to the OP either to rectify the defect or to replace th same with a new one, but OP no.3 kept on lingering on the matter under one pretext or the other. Since 29/4/2015 the mobile phone is lying with OP no.3 who has failed to rectify the problem in the mobile phone. The defect occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period and the OP was bound to rectify the defect but it failed to do so and it amounted to deficiency of service on its part.
5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to OP no.3 to rectify the defect in the mobile phone upto the full satisfaction of the complainant and if that is not possible to replace the same with a new one of the same make with requisite warranty and if that is not possible to refund the amount of Rs.9400/-, the price of the mobile phone. OP no.3 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- for the harassment undergone by the complainant which is inclusive of the cost of litigation. Order be complied by OP no.3 within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Pronounced
Dated: 21/08/2015
Sonia Bansal Neelam Gupta
Member Member
