BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.420 of 2014

Date of Instt. 27.11.2014

Date of Decision :27.03.2015

Swarndeep Singh son of Harbhajan Singh aged about 36 years, R/o 362, JP Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Micromax Authorized Service Centre, M/s Gopal Telecom, EH-198, Shop No.2 (GF), GT Road, Near Gujrat Palace, Jalandhar City, through its Owner/Manager/Authorized Person.

2. Micromax Information Ltd, 21/14 A, Phase-IIiiii, Narane Industrial Area, Delhi-110028 through its MD/Authorized Officer/Manager.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Ravish Malhotra Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Manuj Aggarwal Adv., counsel for OP No.2

Opposite party No.1 exparte.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the opposite party No.1 is the authorized service centre for Micromax Mobiles. The opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of the Micromax Mobiles. The complainant purchased a new sealed Micromax mobile model number A74 with IMEI No.911331601931378 on 1.12.2013 amounting to Rs.7340/-. On 27.8.2014, the complainant noticed the manufacturing defect and faced the display and touch problem in the mobile handset and immediately on 28.8.2014 rushed to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 also noticed the display and touch problem in the mobile set and assured complainant that same will be resolved within one week. Complainant approached the opposite party No.1 many times for receiving back his mobile set but opposite party No.1 linger on matter on one pretext to another and is not handing over the mobile set to complainant after resolving the problem and till date the mobile set is lying with the opposite party No.1 and no status of his mobile set is being informed to him. The complainant wrote the emails to the opposite parties on 16.10.2014 and 11.11.2014 regarding the same. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace mobile handset of the complainant with new one. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice opposite party No.1 did not appear and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

3. However, Sh.Manuj Aggarwal Advocate appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 but did not file any written statement inspite of number of opportunities afforded to him for this purpose. Consequently, opposite party No.2 was debarred from filing written statement vide order dated 3.3.2015.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for opposite party No.2.

6. The complainant purchased Micromax mobile hand set in question from mobile house vide retail invoice dated 1.12.2013 Ex.C1 for Rs.7340/-. According to complainant, he noticed the display contrast and touch screen problem during warranty and gave his mobile handset to service centre i.e opposite party No.1 but till date it has not been returned to him and same is lying with opposite party No.1. Ex.C2 is job sheet issued by opposite party No.1 wherein the above said problems reported by the complainant are mentioned. The complainant has also tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in support of his version. On the other hand, opposite party No.2 has not come present to contest the claim of the complainant and further opposite party No.1 has not filed any written reply rebutting the allegations of the complainant. So from the un-rebutted evidence of the complainant, his version stand proved.

7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties are directed to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one of the same make and model or in the alternative to refund its price to him. The complainant is awarded Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

27.03.2015 Member Member President