BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.397 of 2015

Date of Instt. 09.09.2015

Date of Decision : 26.04.2016

Harjodh Singh aged about 36 years son of Late Jaswant Singh, R/o H.No.116, Near Gurdwara Singh Sabha, Ward No.10, Ladhewali, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Makkar Enterprices, Kakipind, Raman Mandi, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Representative.

2. Gopal Service Centre, Shop No.36, Silver Plaza Complex, Opp.Sanjog Palace, Sodal Road, Jalandhar, through its Prop./ Partner/Authorized Representative.

3. Micromax Informatics Ltd., 21/14A, Phase-II, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi-110028 through its MD/Director/Authorized representative.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Manuj Aggarwal Adv., counsel for OP No.3.

OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.

Order

Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint with the submission that complainant purchased mobile handset Micromax-Canvas Gold bearing IMEI No.911338901262669 for Rs.15,000/- from OP No.1 vide bill No.7817 dated 18.12.2014. At the time of purchasing the mobile handset in question, one year warranty was given by the OPs. In the first week of August 2015, the mobile handset became out of order, various defects had arisen in it i.e. Hanging Problem, Screen Shaking, Battery overheating, Battery Back-up low, phone restarts/reboots, etc. On 11.8.2015 the complainant handed over the mobile set to OP No.2 the authorized service centre of OP No.3 for repair vide job sheet dated 11.8.2015. The OP No.2 told the complainant to collect the handset after 4/5 days. When the complainant went to take the mobile handset from OP No.2 after 5 days, they reported that the mobile handset could not be repaired due to major problem and told the complainant to come after 15 days. But even after 15 days the OP No.2 could not repair the mobile handset nor returned the same to the complainant. Since 11.8.2015 the mobile handset has been lying with OP No.2 un-repaired nor the OP No.2 replaced the same with new one nor refund the amount of the mobile handset to the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to refund the price of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.15,000/-. He has also prayed for compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties were served but OPs No.1 & 2 neither appeared nor filed written statement as such they were proceeded against exparte. OP No.3 appeared through counsel but did not file any written statement.

3. In support of his exparte complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed the exparte evidence of the complainant.

4. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the OP No.3.

5. From the averments of the complaint as well as evidence produced on record by the complainant, it stand fully proved on record that the complainant purchased Micromax mobile handset from OP No.1 vide invoice No.7817 dated 18.12.2014 copy of which is Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.15,000/-. The said mobile handset became defective in the first week of August 2015 as it became out of order and was also giving hanging problem, screen shaking, battery overheating, etc. On 11.8.2015 the complainant handed over the mobile set to OP No.2 the authorized service centre of OP No.3 for repair vide job sheet Ex.C2 dated 11.8.2015. The OP No.2 told the complainant to collect the handset after 4/5 days. When the complainant went to take the mobile handset from OP No.2 after 5 days, they reported that the mobile handset could not be repaired due to major problem and told the complainant to come after 15 days but even after 15 days the OP No.2 could not repair the mobile handset nor returned the same to the complainant. Since 11.8.2015 the mobile handset has been lying with OP No.2 un-repaired nor the OP No.2 replaced the same with new one nor refund the amount of the mobile handset to the complainant. The complainant proved all these averments on oath through his affidavit Ex.CA and also produced on record the copy of invoice Ex.C1, job sheet Ex.C2 as well as the details of the payments of the installments Ex.C3 to Ex.C10 to the finance company from which the complainant has taken the loan for the purchase of the mobile handset and got the same insured from firm “app daily assure”. The evidence produced on record by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged as none appeared on behalf of the OP No.1 & 2 despite service. Even the counsel for the OP No.3 appeared but he also did not file any written statement to contest the complaint filed by the complainant nor any person from OPs dared to file any affidavit to rebut the evidence produced on record by the complainant to prove his case. So, the evidence produced on record by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged and it stands proved on record that the Micromax mobile purchased by the complainant vide invoice Ex.C1 for Rs.15,000/- dated 18.12.2014 became defect in August 2015 with various problem of hanging, screen shaking, battery overheating, etc and he handed over the mobile handset to OP No.2 the authorized service centre of OP No.3 but the OP No.2 could not repair the mobile handset of the complainant nor returned the same to the complainant. All this fully proves that the mobile handset of the complainant is not repairable. As such, OPs No.2 & 3 are liable either to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one or to refund the cost of mobile set to the complainant.

6. Resultantly, present complaint is allowed with cost and OPs No.2 & 3 are directed either to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one of the same make and model or to refund the price of the mobile handset to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which OPs No.2 & 3 shall be liable to pay interest on the price amount of the mobile set of the complainant i.e. Rs.15,000/- @ Rs.9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. The OP No.2 & 3 are also directed to pay cost of litigation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/-. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Bhupinder Singh

26.04.2016 Member Member President