BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.64 of 2016
Date of Instt. 03.02.2016
Date of Decision :14.12.2016
Ramesh Kumar S/o Lal Chand Resident 144, New Dashmesh Nagar, Kala Sanghian Road, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
Kishore Tangri Gift Centre, 236, Near Post Office Bhargo Nagar, Jalandhar through its proprietor/partner.
Micromax Service Centre through M/s Sehaj Tele Care, First Floor, Gulati Complex, Near DLF Mall, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar-14401.
Micromax, Micromax House Head Office at 90-B Sector 18 Gurgaon, 122015
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. Ashok Khanna, Adv., counsel for complainant.
Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 Exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint filed by complainant, wherein alleged that he has purchased one mobile phone from opposite party No.1 through vide cash memo NO.2569 of dated 17.11.2015 for a consideration of Rs.8500/- of Micromax Company model Q411 of Canvas Fire 4G with IMEI No.911452151011922 and 911452151011930.While purchasing the opposite party No.1 has given guaranty as well as warranty that mobile shall work up to the mark of its specification. The complainant, when reached his house and opened the mobile box then he found that there are broken parts in the said mobile then complainant immediately approached the opposite party No.1 and apprised all the facts to the opposite party No.1 but opposite party No.1 showed inability that he is not responsible for the manufacturing or broken parts if came from closed box. As per the instruction of opposite party No.1 went to the office of opposite party No.2 which is a authorized service station of Micromax company. The opposite party No.2apprised and prepared a job card of the said mobile on dated 20.11.2015 with the contents that present mobile was not supported both the sim cards. The service complainant has given set to the opposite party NO.2. They returned back the mobile set to complainant on 21.12.2015 and also charged Rs.550/- for replacement of various parts but when complainant again put his sims in the mobile phone the said mobile phone was not working properly. The same mobile phone automatically gone to switch off mode. The complainant gone to opposite party No.2 and narrated the problem to them and they again issued new job card on dated 22.12.2015. Since then phone is lying with the opposite party No.2 despite number of times personal visits done by the complainant neither opposite party No.1 taken responsibility nor the opposite party No.2 bother about the problem of complainant who suffered lot of mental as well as financial harassment ever since after purchase of aforementioned mobile phone set.
2. That the complainant after completion of three months and whenever complainant went to opposite party No.2 to get the phone then opposite party No.2 every time make excuses that phone is not yet checked so please came after one week or 15 days or one month. The complainant visited number of times shop of the opposite party No.1 but instead of fulfilling or satisfying the complainant the opposite party No.1 started abusing after seeing the complainant in his shop and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties which gave rise to file the present complaint with a prayer that the complaint may be accepted and opposite parties may be directed either to pay the total claim of Rs.8500/- i.e. the payment charged from the complainant as price of the mobile in dispute along with interest or replacement with new mobile and litigation expense and compensation of Rs.25,000/- on account of financial loss or injury detrimental and mental tension agony suffered by the complainant.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties but despite service, opposite party No. 2 did not come present and ultimately, opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte whereas opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel Sh. Mohit Bhardwaj, Advocate and opposite party No.3 appeared through counsel Sh. Manuj Aggarwal, Advocate. Opposite party No.3 failed to file written statement with the stipulated period whereas opposite party No.1 allowed to join the proceedings later on and at the stage when case was fixed for evidence. And before filing the written statement learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 Sh. Manuj Aggarwal, Advocate suffered a statement which was recorded as under “that opposite party No.3 agreed to return back Rs.8500/- price of mobile hand set in question to the complainant within two months, if complainant is ready to accept the said amount, after returning the original job sheet, bill, accessories lying with the complainant. The said proposal is given without accepting any allegation of the complainant made in complaint and with the right to file the written statement”. But this offer of opposite party No.3 was not accepted by the complainant and thereafter case was fixed for complainant evidence but during that time opposite parties No.1 and 2 were also proceeded against exparte.
4. In order to prove his exparte claim, complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C4 and also examine Kishore Tangri Proprietor of Gift Centre i.e. opposite party No.1 who tendered his affidavit Ex.CB and then complainant closed his evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also scanned the file very minutely.
6. After taking into consideration the arguments of the complainant as well as from the pleading and documents, it reveals that the complainant has purchased a mobile phone from opposite party No.1 and these facts has been admitted by the counsel of opposite party No.1 i.e. Kishore Tangri and complaint placed on file an invoice issued by opposite party No.1 at the time of purchasing of mobile set and invoice is Ex.C1 thereafter some problem was occurred in the mobile set and it was deposited with the service centre of the opposite parties who issues job sheets i.e. dated 20.11.2015 Ex.C2, dated 21.12.2015 Ex.C3, dated 22.12.2015 Ex.C4. From the persual of the aforesaid job sheets it has come to notice that there is a major defect in the mobile set and due to that reason the mobile phone of the complainant could not be repaired and these factum is established from the statement of counsel for the opposite party No.3 recorded on 02.05.2016 whereby ready to make payment of the original price of the mobile Rs.8500/-, if so then the complainant is entitled for return of the price as well as compensation because some mental harassment was caused to the complainant due to the delivery of defect of mobile phone set and accordingly the complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties No.2 and 3 are directed to make the payment of the price i.e. Rs.8500/- and compensation of Rs.5000/- and litigation expenses Rs.1500/- with interest on the above whole amount at the rate of 9% from the date of filing the complaint till realization. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
7. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
14.12.2016 Member President
