Haryana

Jind

CC/15/158

Dinesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax House Op1 And M/S Happy Communication Op 2 And M/S Sonu Mobile Shop OP 3 - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Vinod Bansal

08 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 130 of 2015
   Date of Institution: 24.9.2015
   Date of final order: 23.8.2016

Dinesh son of Sultan c/o Mamta Garments opposite Palika Bazar, Jind, District Jind. 
                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
Micromax House, 697 Udyog Phase-X, Gurgaon.
M/s Happy Communication opposite Bharat Cinema, Shiv Chowk, Jhanj Gate, Jind.
M/s Sonu Mobile shop, authorized dealer/service centre, shop No.9 (Basement) near Bharat Cinema, Batra Shopping Centre, Jhanj Gate, Jind.
                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Abhishek Singla Adv. for opposite party No.1
               (defence struck off)    
              Opposite party No. 2&3 already ex-parte. 
         
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased  one Micromax Mobile  for a sum of Rs.6100/- vide invoice No.6095 dated 27.1.2015 from opposite party No.2. As per warranty card the mobile had one year manufacturing warranty from the date of purchase. After about 3 months, the above said mobile had started  
            Dinesh Vs. Micromax etc.
                  …2…
giving problems  and could not function properly, display touch screen of the mobile was not working and software used to remove repeatedly. The complainant deposited the above said mobile set with the opposite No. 3  many times for removing the  defects but the defect could not be cured by opposite party No.3. Since 25.8.2015 the mobile set is in the custody of the opposite parties and has not rturned the same to him. The mobile of the complainant is within the warranty period of one year.  Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to refund  the price of  mobile i.e. Rs.6,100/- along with interest @24% p.a., a sum of Rs.50,000/-  as compensation on account of mental pain and agony as well as to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. 
2.    Notice issued to opposite parties No.2 and 3, received back served but none has come present on behalf of opposite parties No.2 and 3. Hence, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 9.11.2015.
3.    Reply not filed by opposite party No.1 despite last opportunity. Hence, the defence of opposite party No.1 was struck off vide order of this Forum dated 30.6.2016.
4.    In ex-parte evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Annexure C-1, copy of cash memo Ex. C-2 and  copy of job sheet Annexure C-3 and closed the evidence. 
5.    We have heard the arguments of Ld. counsel of both the parties and perused the record placed on file. The complainant had purchased 
            Dinesh Vs. Micromax etc.
                  …3…
the said mobile phone from opposite party No.2 for a sum of Rs.6,100/-. The Ld. counsel of the complainant argued that the mobile in question started giving problems  after about 3 months, display touch screen of the mobile was not working and software used to remove repeatedly. The complainant visited the  opposite party No.3 many times  for its repair as per  job sheet Annexure C-3 within the warranty period but the mobile set could not be repaired. The mobile set is still in the custody of opposite party No.3. 
6.    We have gone through the job sheet Annexure C-3 the  problem reported 4911 display touch screen not working. It means the opposite parties have not rectified the problem of the mobile set within warranty period. It is the duty of the service centre to rectify the problems arose in the mobile set but they did not do so. The opposite parties No.2 and 3 were proceeded ex-parte  and they did not bother  to appear in this Forum and opposite party No.1 manufacturer appeared but the defence of opposite party No.1 was struck off due to not filing the written statement  within stipulated period and version of the complainant goes un-rebutted. Hence, in view of the above discussion we are  of considered view that the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is established. Accordingly the complaint is allowed with cost and the opposite parties are directed to replace the mobile set with new one of the same model or to pay the cost of mobile i.e. Rs.6,100/- to the complainant. We assess Rs.1100/-(Rs. eleven hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. The order be complianced within 30 days from the date of receiving 
            Dinesh Vs. Micromax etc.
                  …4…
the certified copy of order, failing which, the opposite parties will pay  an interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 24.9.2015 till its realization.   Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 23.8.2016
                                      President,
 Member              Member                      District Consumer Disputes                                         Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                       Dinesh Vs. Micromax etc.
                  
                    
Present:  Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Abhishek Singla Adv. for opposite party No.1
               (defence struck off)    
              Opposite party No. 2&3 already ex-parte. 
         

             Arguments heard. To come up on 23.8.2016 for orders.
                                     President,
        Member           Member            DCDRF, Jind
                                19.8.2016

Present:  Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Abhishek Singla Adv. for opposite party No.1
               (defence struck off)    
              Opposite party No. 2&3 already ex-parte. 
         

              Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. 
                                     President,
        Member           Member            DCDRF, Jind
                                23.8.2016