BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.      

                                                          Complaint No.: 46 of 2017.

                                                          Date of Institution: 08.03.2017.

                                                          Date of Order:  02.01.2019.

Anuj Singal minor son of Shri Sanjay Singal, resident of Gaushala Market, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani (Haryana) through his natural guardian & father Shri Sanjay Singal son of late Khajan Chand.

                                                                             ….Complainant.

                                      Versus

1.       Laxmi Interprises, 50, Adarsh College Market, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani through its Proprietor.

2.       Khurana Mobiles (Bhiwani), shop No. 21, Halwasia Mall, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani, care centre of Micromax Care centre.

3.       Micromax House, 90-B, Sector-18, Gurgaon – 122015 through its Managing Director.

…...Opposite Parties.

                             Complaint under Section 12 of the

 Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.

                   Hon’ble Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Member.

Present:       Shri Satender Ghanghas, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Harinder Rana, Advocate for OP No. 3.

                   OPs No. 1 & 2 already exparte.

ORDER: -

PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

                   Brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he has purchased mobile set Blazz-4 bearing IMEI No.9114687006262262 from OP No.1 vide bill No. 7085 dated 10.1.2016 for Rs. 5800/-.  It is alleged that one year warranty was given by the OP No.1 of the Mobile in question.  It is further alleged that the mobile set starting giving problems just after its purchase, due to some manufacturing defect.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached OP No. 2 for the repair of his mobile set, who issued the job sheet dated 12.2.2016 and returned the mobile set stating that the same is OK.  It is further alleged that the mobile in question again become defective on 1.12.2016 and when the complainant approach the OP No. 2 for the repair of the same, he refused to repair the same by saying the warranty of mobile set expired and OP No. 2 also gave the same in writing to complainant and also told that earlier the mobile set has been sold to someone else by the its seller.  It is further alleged that the OP No.1 has issued a false bill to the complainant, because as per the record of OP No. 2, the OP No.1 has already sold the mobile set to any other and thus he sold a second hand mobile set to the complainant.  It is further alleged that the complainant has requested the OP No.1 to refund the amount of Rs. 5800/-, as he has played fraud with the complainant by selling old mobile set, but he refused to refund the cost of mobile set and the OP No.1 also misbehaved with the complainant.  It is further alleged that the complainant has got served a legal notice upon OPs through Shri J. S. Soni, Advocate Bhiwani on 29.12.2016, but to no effect.  Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                Notice issued to the OP No. 1 and 2 through registered post, but no one appeared on behalf of the OP No.1 & 2 and they were proceeded as exparte by this Forum vide order dated 4.5.2017. 

3.                OP No. 3 on appearance filed contested written statement denying the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint.  It is further alleged that the complainant has failed to produce any document on record regarding approaching the service center of the answering OP.  It is further alleged that the answering OP never denied to provide its services to the complainant, as assured under the terms of warranty.  It is further alleged that the complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence on record to prove that there was defect in mobile set.  It is further alleged that it is not clear as to in whose name the said hand set was purchased.  It is further alleged that replacement is limited only to those cases where repair is not possible and where there is a genuine problem of repeated repairs of the same problem.  It is further alleged that the complainant has not disclosed as to how the handset became defective and what were the defects in the handset, if any.  It is further alleged that the authorized service centre of the answering OP repair the handset and return to the complainant after duly inspection.  It is further alleged that the handset was not having manufacturing defect, because the complainant not filed any report of an expert as required under law. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                Complainant to prove his case placed on record his duly sworn affidavit as Annexure C1, copy of invoice as Annexure C2, copy of Job Sheet as Annexure C3, copy of refusal given in writing by the OP No. 2 dated 27.12.2016 as Annexure C4, copy of a bill dated 30.7.2016 as Annexure C5, copy of legal notice as Annexure C6 & Annexure C7 to C9 and closed the evidence. 

5.                 We have heard both the parties at length and gone through the case file carefully.

6.                After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that complaint of the complainant deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency & unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  Complainant has successfully proved his case by placing on record the copy of bill, copy of job sheet and copy of refusal allegedly given by the OP No. 2 in writing dated 27.12.2016 as Annexure C4.  The OPs even failed to rebut the case of the complainant by placing on record some cogent & convincing evidence.  The OP No. 3 in its written statement nowhere controverts the refusal allegedly given by OP No. 2 in writing on dated 27.12.2016 (Annexure C4).  It is clear that from the perusal of the title of complaint that Shri Sanjay is the father of the complainant, who has purchased the mobile in question in his sons name i.e. Anuj who is complainant.  Moreover, the complainant has duly proved on record that the OPs have sold a defective mobile set to him by placing on record documentary evidence.  It appears that OPs have nothing to say to controvert the stand taken by the complainant. 

7.                Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the complaint of complainant is partly allowed with costs.  Thus, the OPs are directed to:-

i.        To pay Rs.5800/- towards cost of mobile set along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till its realization.

iii.      To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges. 

The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order.  Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: - 02.01.2019.     

(Renu Chaudhary)         (Parmod Kumar)        (Manjit Singh Naryal)

Member.                        Member.                         President,

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.