BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                Consumer Complaint No. 26 of 2017.

                                                Date of Institution:         06.02.2017.

                                                Date of Decision:           07.12.2018.                                      

Ravi son of Shri Narender Kumar, resident of village Devsar, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

…..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1.       Laxmi Mobile, near Liberty Show Room, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani, District Bhiwani.

2.       Micromax Mobile Service Centre, Khurana Mobile (Bhiwani) Shop No. 21, 1^st Floor, Haluwasia Mall, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani.

3.       Micromax Customer Care Office, Micromax Infomatic Lt., 90B, Sector-18, Gurgram Haryana-122015..

…..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 Miss Renu Chaudhary, Member.

Present:       Complainant  in person.

                   Shri Harinder Rana, Advocate for the OP No. 3.

OPs No.1 and 2 already exparte.

ORDER:-

PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

              Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased a Micromax mobile set model No. E-311, IMEI No. 911425154819715, 911425155819714 on 27.2.2016 from the OP No.1 worth Rs.8400/- vide bill No.10148 dated 27.2.2016.  It is further alleged that one year warranty was given by OP No.1.  It is further alleged that the mobile set stopped working after 6 months of its purchase and its touch screen also stop working. It is further alleged that the complainant  deposited the mobile set with OP No. 2 being the care centre, who return the same after repair.  It is further alleged that when complainant used the mobile set, the same problem found exist.  It is further alleged on 5.12.2016 complainant again deposit the mobile set with OP No. 2 vide job sheet No. 2122107-1216-26765344 and assured that if mobile set could not be repaired, then the same will be replaced with new one.  It is further alleged that the OPs have failed in repairing the mobile set and they have also not replaced the mobile set in question with new one, despite several visits and requests.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                Notice issued to the OPs No.1 and 2, but no one appeared on their behalf before this Forum despite service of summons and the OPs No. 1 and 2 were proceeded as exparte vide order dated 30.03.2017. 

3.                On notice Shri Harinder Rana, Advocate appeared on behalf of the OP No. 3 and filed the contested reply alleging therein that the complainant used the mobile set for about 9 months and then deposited the same with the respondent on 5.12.2016 and filed the present complaint on 6.2.2017.  It is further alleged that the mobile set has been repaired by the service centre, but the complainant refused to take back the mobile set.  It is further alleged that the handset will be repaired free of charges and as per the limited warranty terms only in those case the where repair is not possible the mobile set will be replaced with new one and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                The complainant placed on record his affidavit as annexure C1, copy of bill as annexure-C2 and copy of Job Sheet as annexure-C3 and closed the evidence.  Ld. counsel for the OP No. 3 also closed the evidence without tendering any document.

5.                We have heard the complainant and ld. counsel for the OP No. 3 at length and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.              The complainant has also placed on record his affidavit, copy of bill and also job sheet as Annexure C1 and C2 to prove his complaint.  On the other hand OPs have failed to place any documentary evidence to controvert the claim of the complainant.  From the perusal of documents it is clear that the complainant has purchased the mobile set from the OP No. 1 on 27.2.2016 for a sum of Rs.8400/- and deposit the same with the OP No. 2 on 5.12.2016 for its repair, as the mobile set stop working and its touch was not working.  As such, all allegations leveled against the opposite parties regarding selling of defective mobile set stands proved, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

7.                Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances and the evidence brought on record by complainant, we allowed the complaint and the opposite parties are directed as under :-

1. to refund the amount of Rs. 8400/- to the complainant towards the cost of defective mobile.

2. to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of mental

agony, physical harassment and hardship.

3. to pay Rs.2200/- for litigation expenses.

7.                 Compliance of the order shall be made by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receiving of its certified copies, failing which the amounts at Sr. No. (i) shall carry interest @ 9%  per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.  The copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open court.

7.12.2018. 

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

      Member.                            Member.                President,

                                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                                       Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.