DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.267 of 23-04-2014

Decided on 24-09-2014

Er.Harpreet Singh Sandhu S/o S.Gurbachan Singh Sandhu, 110, Type V, Power Colony, GHTP, Lehra Mohabbat, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.The Managing Director, Micromax Industries Ltd., Head Office, Micromax House, 90B, Sector-18, Gurgaon-122015.

2.The Proprietor, M/s Unitech Mobile Service Centre 6383/2481, Bangi House Street, Mehna Marg, Near Old Bus Stand, Bathinda-151001.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Harpreet Singh, complainant in person.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Amit Ghai, counsel for the opposite parties.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complaint is that he has purchased one mobile handset of Micromax company, model No.Canvas HD, A116 bearing IMEI No.911304250418500 for Rs.13,990/- vide invoice No.1313893 dated 24.3.2013 from the authorized online store of the opposite party No.1 at its website www.snapdeal.com with one year warranty. The invoice has been generated by M/s Spinel Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, the authorized seller of the opposite party No.1. The complainant alleged that the abovesaid mobile handset started giving some problems regarding faulty operation of speaker, mike and charging etc. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2, the authorized service centre of the opposite party No.1 for the repair of the abovesaid mobile handset, it each time after the repair of the mobile handset in question assured him that the problem would not re-occur. After usage of the abovesaid mobile handset for few days, it started giving another problem in its touch display, as it started working automatically, making calls/sending SMS to recent contacts, starting camera on its own, disconnecting ongoing calls etc. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.2, it changed the touch display of the abovesaid mobile handset and returned it to him, but again the abovesaid mobile handset in question started giving the same problem and was again deposited with the opposite party No.2 on 3.3.2014 vide job sheet No.N090195-0314-8428471. The complainant many times approached the opposite party No.2 to know about the status of his mobile handset. After many visits/calls the opposite party No.2 conveyed the complainant that the fault could not be removed after changing of the touch display again, so it would take up the matter with the opposite party No.1 (the OEM) for the replacement of the mobile handset in question with new one under warranty. Mr.Sachin, the representative of the opposite party No.2 conveyed the complainant that he has written detailed e-mail and whatsapp messages to the higher authorities for the replacement of the abovesaid mobile handset with new one, but till date no replacement has been done. Since 3.3.2014, the mobile handset in question is in the custody of the opposite party No.2 and has been lying in unrepairable condition, as there is some manufacturing defect in it. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties either to replace the abovesaid mobile handset with new one or to refund its price i.e. Rs.13,990/- besides cost and compensation.

2. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant has purchased the abovesaid mobile handset on 24.3.2013 and deposited it with the opposite party No.2 on 3.3.2014 after using it for more than 11 months and only 20 days of the warranty was left. After deposit of the mobile handset in question with the opposite party No.2 on 3.3.2014, the complainant never turned up to collect it. The abovesaid mobile handset is ready with the opposite party No.2, it called him several times to collect his mobile handset from it, but he has failed to collect it. The opposite parties further pleaded that the complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence or any expert evidence on record to support his allegation. The warranty period covers the range of faults that ensue normally from mechanical functioning of the mobile handset without any interference or outside influences. The warranty of the mobile handset is one year, for batteries, chargers, headsets and cables for 6 months and 90 days for CD ROM and memory card.

3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased one mobile handset of Micromax company, model No.Canvas HD, A116 bearing IMEI No.911304250418500 for Rs.13,990/- vide invoice No.1313893 dated 24.3.2013 with one year warranty.

6. The contention of the complainant is that his mobile handset became defective, as there were problems relating to speaker, mike, charging, display, as it started working automatically, making calls/sending SMS to recent contacts, starting camera on its own and disconnecting ongoing calls etc. The opposite party No.2 repaired the abovesaid mobile handset, but each time it failed to remove the defects despite changing of the touch display. Mr.Sachin, the representative of the opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that the abovesaid mobile handset would be replaced with new one, as it is within the warranty period, but nothing has been done till date. Since 3.3.2014, the mobile handset in question is lying with the opposite party No.2.

7. On the other hand the submission of the opposite parties is that the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 on 3.3.2014 after using the abovesaid mobile handset for more than 11 months from its purchase and only 20 days of the warranty was left when he complained regarding his mobile handset. The complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence or any expert evidence on record to support his allegation. The complainant is alleging manufacturing defect in the mobile handset in question, but no evidence has been produced by him to prove his this allegation.

8. A perusal of job sheet dated 3.3.2014, Ex.C3, shows that it has been issued on 3.3.2014 and symptom was relating to 'display touch screen not working'. The complainant has purchased the mobile handset in question on 24.3.2013 and only one job sheet has been placed on file by the complainant i.e. dated 3.3.2014, meaning thereby he has used the abovesaid mobile handset for 11 months without any defect. The defect has occurred after 11 months from the usage of the abovesaid mobile handset, thus the complainant cannot allege any manufacturing defect in it. If there would have been any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset in question, it would not have worked for 11 months. The complainant himself has mentioned in his complaint that whenever he took his mobile handset for repair regarding touch display, the same has been repaired by the opposite party No.2, meaning thereby whenever he approached the opposite party No.2, his complaints have been duly attended by it. However, the defect mentioned by the complainant in his complaint is minor in nature that is repairable. The opposite party No.2 has kept the abovesaid mobile handset with it since 3.3.2014 and same has not been handed over to the complainant till date. The opposite parties pleaded that the complainant has been called many times to take the delivery of his mobile handset, but no such record of calls has been placed on file by them, thus the opposite parties deprived the complainant from the usage of his mobile handset for approximately 6 months, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

9. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above this complaint is partly accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite parties. The opposite parties are directed to repair the mobile handset in question to the entire satisfaction of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and at the same time the complainant will sign the satisfaction note after receiving the repaired mobile handset in question.

10. The compliance with regard to cost and compensation be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

24-09-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh) Member