Delhi

North East

CC/61/2016

Mohd. Abid - Complainant(s)

Versus

JBL Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

02 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.61/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Mohd. Abid H.No. X-33, Welcome Colony New Delhi 110053.	Complainant
	Versus
1       2         3	JBL Electronics 1/2417, Mandoli Road, Ram Nagar Shahdara,  Delhi-110051   M/s VI Communication Shop No. 83-A, FF, Radhey Puri Extn. Jagat Puri Main Road, Near PNB Bank New Delhi -110051.   Micromax Informatics Ltd. Head Office : Micromax House 90-B, Gurgaon Sector 18, Gurgaon 122015.	Opposite Parties

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:	12.02.2016
	RESERVED FOR ORDER:	27.04.2018
	DATE OF DECISION:	02.05.2018

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

ORDER

1. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Micromax mobile set EG116 bearing IMEI                  No. 911326500040784 manufactured by OP3 on 26.10.2015 from OP1 retail outlet for a sum of Rs. 8,800/- vide retail invoice no 400 dated 26.10.2015. It has been submitted by him that from the very first date, the above mobile set became defective and after some months, the mobile phone created problems like display- touch screen not working. Accordingly, the complainant visited the office of OP2, service center of OP3 and deposited his mobile on 04.01.2016 vide job sheet no. 31598011621146164 and there, the officer of the OP2 assured the complainant that his mobile would be repaired within 7 days. But after 7 days when he visited the office of OP2 he found that his mobile phone was not repaired. Thereafter, he continued his visits to office of OP2 but the OP2 didn’t give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. Owing to the conduct of OP2 being highly illegal, uncalled for, unwarranted and against the natural justice, the complainant has suffered extreme mental agony and the service was not provided by the OP2 and therefore complainant has alleged that it is a crystal clear case of deficiency in service of OP and as such complainant has prayed vide the present complaint that the OPs may be directed to refund the cost of the mobile i.e.  Rs. 8,800/- to the complainant. Besides the above, the OPs may also be directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to complainant as compensation for harassment as well as for mental agony and in addition to above, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- may be paid to complainant towards cost of litigation.

The complainant has attached a copy of retail invoice vide no. 400 dated 26.10.2015 for an amount of Rs. 8,800/- towards the purchase of Micromax mobile model EG116, copy of job sheet vide no. 31598-0116-21146164 dated 04.01.2016 which is duly signed by OP2 with its seal alongwith the present complaint.

2. A notice was issued under section 13 of CPA 1986 on 02.03.2016 to OPs wherein all the OPs were directed to appear before the Forum on 29.03.2016. The above notices were received by all the OPs in early March of 2016.  However, none of the OP appeared before this Forum and as such were proceeded Ex parte vide order dated 26.04.2016.
3. Ex parte evidence by way of affidavit filed by complainant wherein grievance in the complaint was reiterated by the complainant. Complainant has also enclosed a copy of warranty card where his name and product serial no. alongwith date of purchase were mentioned. From the perusal of warranty card, it is clear that the product was well within warranty for a period of 12 months from the date of purchase and also valid for six months for accessories etc. It was further submitted that defective mobile set was given to complainant by OP which was not repaired and as such he was facing a lot of problems for the inferior quality product. Further it was contended by the complainant that the OPs were not interested to settle the petty matter inspite of opportunities offered to them to settle the matter amicably and as such the services of OPs had been grossly deficient in service.
4. Written arguments were filed by complainant where the complainant summarized the grievance against the OPs and stated that the defective mobile in question was still lying with OP2 having received by it vide job sheet no. 31598011621146164 dated 04.01.2016 and has not been returned to the complainant due to which the complainant is facing extreme difficulty in daily conversation, financial loss, mental agony and therefore entitled to compensation against the OPs.
5. We have heard the oral arguments of complainant and have gone through the evidence submitted by complainant in support of his contentions. In the absence of any rebuttal from the OPs to the contention / allegation leveled by the complainant and on perusal of documents placed on record and relied upon by the complainant we are of the view that the complainant has succeeded in establishing a case of deficiency in service on part of OPs as his mobile phone became non functional after barely two months of purchase and the OP2 failed to cure the defects therein despite many visits to OP2 by complainant. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that OPs are guilty of deficiency of service and are liable jointly and severally as seller, manufacturer, service centre of the subject mobile which failed to discharge its duties. We therefore direct the OPs jointly and severally to refund the cost of mobile to the tune of. 8,800/- to complainant. We further award the complainant an amount of Rs. 5,000/- for the mental agony and physical as well as financial hardship caused to him by OPs and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses payable by the OPs jointly and severally. Let the order be complied with 30 days from the date of copy of receipt of this order. Failing which all the OPs shall be liable jointly and severally to pay to the complainant a sum of                   Rs. 15,800/- alongwith penal interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of awards till realization.
6. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on 02.05.2018)          

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member