Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/446/2016

Sh Mandeep Singh Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jaiz Mobile World - Opp.Party(s)

In person

21 Aug 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/446/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	20/06/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	21/08/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Mandeep Singh Bhatia S/o S. Amarjeet Singh Bhatia, Resident of H.No.9/7212, Gurudwara Gali, Gandhi Nagar, New Delhi-31.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

[1]  Jai’z Mobile World, Shop No. 248-C, 2^nd Floor, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

 

[2]  M/s Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd., 807, New Delhi House, Barah Khamba Road, New Delhi-110001, through its Manager.

…… Opposite Parties  

 

BEFORE:   SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. RAVINDER SINGH           MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Dikshit Arora, Advocate.
For OP No.2	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant had purchased one Microsoft Lumia 550 Black mobile handset from the Opposite Party No.1 vide retail invoice dated 08-04-2016 for Rs.9200/-. It has been alleged that soon after its purchase, the said mobile handset encountered heating and low battery problems, persistently, and eventually, went dead on 11.04.2016. On 12.04.2016, the Complainant deposited the same with the Delhi Service Centre, upon which the Microsoft Executive advised him to contact the Seller, for exchange of the handset, with a new one. The Complainant accordingly, approached the Opposite Party No.1, who directed him to contact the Microsoft Customer Care for issuance of the DOA Certificate, but to no success. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.  

   

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case. Since, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.

 

3.     Opposite Party No.1 in its reply has stated that it was the Complainant, who was unable to get DOA certificate from the Microsoft Service Centre, Sector 22, Chandigarh, which was very much necessary for exchanging the mobile handset of the Complainant with a new one, as per the settled terms and conditions of the Opposite Party No.2. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the Opposite Party No.1, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party No.1 have been controverted.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and also perused the record, with utmost care and circumspection.

 

7.     In the present case, the averments of the complaint have gone unrebutted in the absence of the Opposite Party No.2, who was duly served, and preferred neither to appear in person, nor through its Counsel. It is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The Opposite Party No.2 have certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice. Also, the Opposite Party No.2 did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant when contacted by him, resulting into immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against it.

 

8.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party No.2 is deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.2 alone, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party No.2 is directed:-

[a]  To refund Rs.9,200/- being the invoice price of the mobile handset;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

[c]  To pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation.

          The complaint against Opposite Party No.1 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

9.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.2; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the amounts mentioned in sub-paras [a] and [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].  

 

10.     The Complainant shall return the defective Mobile handset in question to the Opposite Party No.2 after the compliance of the order.

 

11.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

21^st August, 2017                                    Sd/-      

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                      Sd/- 

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”