DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA
Consumer Complaint No. 182 of 18/05/2017
Decided on: 13/12/2018
Charandeep Singh, aged about 27 years resident of H. No.728, Bajwa Colony, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Micromax, 90-A, Sector 18, Gurgaon, Haryana 122015.
2. Bhatia Mobile Hut, Lahori Gate, Near Balmiki Mandir, Patiala.
3. M/s Ganesh Electricals,SCO 27, Ist Floor, City Centre, Near 22 No. Phatak, Bhupindera Road, Patiala.
…………Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
Sh. Kanwaljeet Singh, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh. Narinder Singh Adv. counsel for complainant.
OPs No.1 to 3 Ex-parte.
ORDER
NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER
1. The complainant purchased one mobile phone make Micromax A 350 having IMEI NO.s911357701917143 and 911357701517643 black + Gold for a sum of Rs.14700/- from OP No.2 on cash payment. It is averred that from the very beginning the said mobile phone started giving problem of “Battery Low” after fully charging the same, and the complainant reported the matter to OP No.2 who told the complainant to contact OP No.3, who is the authorized service centre of the company. Accordingly the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP No.3 who returned the mobile phone after 2-3 days by saying that the defect had been rectified. But when the complainant used the said mobile phone he noticed that the problem in the mobile phone was not rectified and it still persisted. The complainant contacted OP No.3 but OP No.3 told the complainant to use the mobile phone and the problem will get rectified by using the mobile phone for some time and in case the problem does not get rectified, in that case the complainant should contact the company through Email. Thereafter, the complainant made various requests to OP No.1 from 11/4/2015 to July 2015 for the replacement of the mobile phone with a new one but to no use. Again on 15/01/2016, the complainant contacted OP No.3 & got the mobile phone deposited with it and OP No.3 gave a old stand-by mobile phone set to the complainant. OP No.3 also told the complainant that it is sending the mobile phone to the company for replacement and for the time being, the complainant can use the stand-by set. Thereafter, the complainant contacted OP No.3 many times till the filing of the present complaint but the OP failed to return the replaced mobile phone to the complainant which amounted to deficiency in service on its part. The complainant underwent a lot of harassment at the hands of the OPs and ultimately he approached this Forum u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act) 1986.
2. On notice, OPs failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against ex-parte.
3. In support of the complaint, ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14 and closed the ex-parte complainant evidence.
4. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant and also gone through the evidence on record.
5. Ex.C-1 is the copy of the Invoice whereby the complainant purchased one mobile phone from OP No.2 on 28/01/2015 for a sum of Rs.14,700/-. Within a month of the said purchase, the said mobile phone started giving problem of “Low Battery”, and battery overheating. The complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP No.3 on 25/02/2015 vide job sheet i.e. Ex.C-2. The Op returned the mobile phone after 2-3 days but the problem in the mobile phone still persisted. Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-9 are the Emails sent by the complainant to OP No.1 but the Ops did not turn up. Ex.C-10 is the job sheet dt.30/10/2015 whereby the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP No.3. On 15/01/2016 OP No.3 handed over a stand-by mobile phone to the complainant vide Ex.C-11. Since 30/10/2015, the mobile phone in question has been lying with OP No.3, who has neither rectified the problem nor returned the mobile phone to the complainant, which amounted to deficiency in service on its part as the defect occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period.
6. Today during the course of arguments also, the ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that since the last 37 months the mobile phone is lying with Op No.3. As such the complainant had to purchase a new mobile phone as these days mobile phone is a basic necessity and it is very difficult to manage without mobile phone. Moreover, failure on the part of the OPs to contest the claim of the complainant shows the indifferent attitude of the OPs to redress the grievance of the complainant.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OP No.1 & 3 to refund the amount of Rs.14,700/- the same being the price of the mobile phone to the complainant and the complainant should return the stand-by mobile phone to the OP against proper receipt. OPs No.1 & 3 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant along with a sum of Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied by OPs No.1 & 3 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED: 13/12/2018
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
KANWALJEET SINGH
Member
