Punjab

Patiala

CC/14/320

Vagesh Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

Krishan Mobile Point - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

26 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

Complaint No. CC/14/320 of 18/11/2014

Decided on 26/02/2015

 

Vagesh Kapoor, aged about 33 years son of Sh. Ved Kapoor, Resident of 302, Harinder Nagar, Tripuri Town, Patiala. ….Complainant.

Versus

 

1. Krishan Mobile Point, #6354, Street no.19, Opp. SBOP, Tripuri Town, Patiala.

2. Ganesh Electricals, 37-C, Mansahia Colony, Near 21 no. Phatak, Railway Road, Patiala.

3. Micromax Mobiles, H.O. Micromax House, # 90-B, Sector-18, Gurgaon-122015.

….Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the

Consumer Protection Act.

 

QUORUM

Sh. D. R. Arora, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

 

Present:

For Complainant : Sh. Vagesh Kapoor complainant in person.

For Opposite party no.2 & 3 : Ex-parte.

 

ORDER

NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER:

1. The complainant purchased one mobile handset of Micromax from OP no.1 vide invoice no.128 dt. 3/06/2014 for an amount of Rs.15,800/-. It is averred that within a period of 3 months of the said purchase, some problem i.e. battery/charging, battery over-heating, Audio, No-outgoing cropped up in the said mobile phone. The complainant approached OP no.1 who told him to approach OP no.II i.e. the service centre of the company. Accordingly the complainant contacted OP no.2 on 3/9/2014 and deposited the mobile hand set with it, who told the complainant to come after 15 days. After 15 days, the complainant approached OP no.2 but OP no.2 told the complainant to come after 15 days. The complainant requested OP no.2 that in the absence of Mobile phone, his business was suffering but OP no.2 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. On the expiry of 15 days, the complainant again went to OP no.2 and requested for the delivery of the mobile phone but the same was not delivered and the complainant was told to wait for another 10 days. On 6^th Oct. 2014, the complainant received a message that he should collect the mobile phone from the service centre as the same had been repaired. The complainant collected the mobile handset from the service centre on 7^th Oct. 2014.

2. It is further averred that on the very next day, the complainant noticed that there was another problem in the mobile handset and he approached OP no.2 on 20/11/2014 who told the complainant to deposit the mobile phone with it and to come after 15 days as the sensors of the mobile phone were not working. The complainant requested OP no.2 to repair the mobile phone at the earliest as he did not have another mobile phone and in the absence of the mobile phone his business was suffering. It is averred that on this, Op no.2 started using vulgar language and also told the complainant to come after 15 days if he wanted to get his mobile phone repaired. The complainant approached OP no.2 after 15 days but Op no.2 told the complainant to wait for another seven days.

3. The complainant approached OP no.2 on 11/11/2014 and OP no.2 delivered the mobile phone to the complainant assuring that the defect had been removed but on the very same day, the complainant noticed that the mobile phone was not working properly as there was another problem in the mobile phone. The complainant approached OP no.2 on 12/11/2014, who told the complainant to deposit the mobile phone with it and also stated that the complainant will receive a message regarding the repair of the mobile phone. Since then the mobile phone is lying with Op no.2. The complainant underwent a lot of harassment and ultimately he approached this forum u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ( for short the Act).

4. On notice, OP no.2 & 3, against whom the cognizance was taken, failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against ex-parte.

5. In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence his sworn affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 ahd he closed the evidence.

6. The complainant failed to file written arguments. We have heard the complainant in person and gone through the evidence.

7. Ex.C-1 is the copy of the invoice vide which the complainant purchased the mobile phone bearing IMEI no.911334751051286, 911334751357287 on 3/6/2014 from Op no.1 for an amount of Rs.15,800/-. Ex.C-2 is the job sheet dt. 3/9/2014 whereby, the complainant deposited the mobile phone with Op no.2. The complainant got back the repaired handset on 7^th Oct. 2014. On the very next day some other problem cropped up in the said mobile phone and the complainant again deposited the mobile hand set with Op no.2 on 20/10/2014 vide job sheet i.e. Ex.C-3. The complainant got back the repaired mobile phone on 11/11/2014. On the same day the complainant noticed that the same previous problem had occurred in the mobile phone and he again approached OP no.2 and deposited the mobile phone with it on 12/11/2014 vide job sheet i.e. Ex.C-3. Since then, OP has neither repaired the mobile phone nor returned it to the complainant and the same is lying with it.

8. In the present case, the complainant approached OP no.2 thrice in a span of almost five months but the defect in the mobile phone could not be rectified. Since 12/11/2014 i.e. the date of the third complaint, the mobile phone is lying with OP no.2, who has failed to rectify the defect. Perusal of the job sheet shows that the same problem is occurring again & again which shows that defect is irrepairable as there is some manufacturing defect in the mobile phone. Moreover, OPs failure to contest the claim of the complainant also shows their in different attitude to solve the complaint of the complainant.

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to OP no.3 to replace the mobile hand set with a new one of the same model and if that is not possible to refund an amount of Rs.15,800/-, the price of the mobile phone. OP no.3 is also obliged to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant which is inclusive of the cost of the litigation. Order be complied by Op no.3 within a period of one month on the receipt of the certified copy of the order. On failure to comply with the order within one month, OP no.3 shall be liable to refund the price with interest @ 9% from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced

Dated: 26/02/2015.

D. R. Arora Neelam Gupta

President Member