| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/15/118 of 8.6.2015 Decided on: 17.11.2015 Rajesh Kumar son of Sh.Deep Kumar, resident of House No.213, Raja Narinder Singh Street, Nabha, District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus 1. Micromax Head Office, Micromax House 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana, through Incharge Complaints. 2. Micromax Main Office, Punjab, Plot No.297-F, Phase 8-B, Industrial Area, Mohali, District Ropar, through Incharge Complaints. 3. M/s Ganesh Electricals , 37-C, Manshia colony, Near 21 No.Phatak, Railway Road, Patiala. 4. Friends Communications, Mehas Gate, Nabha, through its Proprietor. …………….Ops Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.D.R.Arora, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.Varinder Kumar, Advocate proxy counsel for Sh.Harvinder Singh, Advocate For Ops No.1&3: Exparte. ORDER D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT - It is alleged by the complainant that he had purchased mobile hand set make Micromax model A-117 bearing IMEI No.911334850468142 and 911334850774143 from Op no.4 vide bill No.628 dated 24.3.2014 for Rs.13,500/-.After a gap of six months from the purchase, the mobile hand set started giving trouble having stopped working and even the battery of the same was not getting charged properly. At this the complainant approached Op no.4 and lodged a complaint. Op no.4 sent the mobile hand set alongwith complaint to M/s Ganesh Electricals i.e. Op no.3, who found the defect in the touch screen and the battery not getting properly charged, who sent the job sheet dated 30.9.2014 to the complainant through e-mail.
- The complainant visited Op no.4 several times but he could not get any satisfactory reply. He failed to get the mobile hand set after repair from Op no.4. Ultimately he got the Ops served with a legal notice with a request either to remove the defect in the mobile hand set or to replace the same within a week from the receipt of the notice but the Ops failed to give any reply or to do the needful in the matter.
- Because of the failure on the part of the Ops to rectify the defect in the mobile hand set or to reply the legal notice, the complainant suffered the harassment as also the mental agony qua the inconvenience for which it is alleged that he is entitled to a compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/-.Accordingly the complainant brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Ops to remove the defect in the mobile hand set; to pay him Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him and further to award him Rs.11000/-towards the costs of the complaint.
- The cognizance of the complaint was taken against Op nos.1&3 only, who on appearance filed the written version. The ops did not deny the complainant having purchased the mobile hand set in question from Op no.4 but it is denied that after a gap of six months the mobile hand set had started giving a problem having gone out of order and that the battery of the same was not getting properly charged. It is also denied that the complainant had approached Op no.4 regarding the aforesaid defect in the mobile hand set. It is however, admitted by the Ops that Op no.4 had sent the mobile hand set for repair to Op no.3 but it is denied that the mobile hand set was found not to be working properly or there appeared a defect in the display touch screen or that the battery was not getting charged properly. Op no.3 had contacted the complainant several times and requested through mobile phone calls made through mobile numbers 09646872030 and 09646892030 to take his set back as the same was working properly but the complainant failed to turn up. It is denied that the complainant had paid several visits to the shop of Op no.4 or that no satisfactory reply was given. The complainant had not visited the Op even once despite the fact that Op no.3 had informed him that his mobile hand set was working .Even on the day of the filing of the written version the mobile hand set was lying with op no.3 in a working condition and Op no.3 was ready to handover the same to the complainant. After controverting the other allegations of the complaint, going against the Ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of his complaint,the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C11 and he closed his evidence.
- On the other hand, the Ops despite having availed of two opportunities failed to lead any evidence and rather on the 3rd adjournment, the Ops absented from the proceedings and were accordingly proceeded against exparte.
- The complainant failed to file the written arguments. We have heard proxy counsel for the counsel for the complainant and gone through the evidence on record.
- The Ops have admitted the complainant having had submitted his mobile phone make Micromax with Op no.4 who had sent the same to Op no.3 for its repair, in respect of which the complainant got the job sheet dated 30.9.2014, Ex.C6 online but it is the plea taken up by the Ops that the same was found working properly and there was no defect in the display touch screen nor there was any defect in the battery and that the complainant was requested through his mobile phone Nos.09646872030 and 09646892030 several times to collect his mobile hand set but he failed to turn up. The ops despite having availed of two opportunities failed to lead any evidence and failed to turn up on the 3rd adjournment to lead any evidence and accordingly they were proceeded against exparte. It was for the Ops to have lead the evidence including the production of the job sheet dated 30.9.2014 showing the remarks given thereon by the mechanic/technician that there was no defect in the mobile hand set and further to have lead the evidence that the complainant was informed through his aforesaid two mobile phone numbers that he should collect the same but no evidence of that sort has been lead by the Ops.
- Here, it may be noted that in the job sheet Ex.C6 dated 30.9.2014 the problem reported has been noted as : “4911 Display Touch Screen not working, 5301 charging/battery No charging 5302 charging/battery low battery capacity/battery DR”. It was therefore, for the Ops to have lead the evidence that the said defects noted in the job sheet were not actually found on the mechanical examination of the mobile phone and the concerned technician/mechanic should have given his report regarding the same on the job sheet. Nothing is disclosed by the Ops on which dates the Ops had informed the complainant through his aforesaid two mobile phone numbers that he should collect the mobile phone from Op no.3, in the absence of which the said plea of the Ops is found to be without any basis and made up one. Consequently we find every reason to accept the complaint that the Ops failed to rectify the defect in the mobile hand set without any justification and have unnecessarily delayed the matter for a period of about 13½ months. Consequently we accept the complaint and direct Ops no.1&3 to rectify the defect in the mobile hand set to the satisfaction of the complainant and to hand over the same to the complainant on the basis of a satisfaction note to be got recorded from the complainant on the job sheet itself and in case the mobile hand set is not repairable to provide him brand new mobile hand set of the same make and in case that is not possible, to refund the price of the same i.e. Rs.13,500/- with interest w.e.f. 30.9.2014.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is accepted with costs assessed at Rs.5000/-.The order be complied by the Ops within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Pronounced Dated:17.11 .2015 Sonia Bansal Neelam Gupta D.R.Arora Member Member President | |
