Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/201/2015

Brij Mohan Bhandari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax House - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Babbar Bhan Adv.

20 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Brij Mohan Bhandari son of Sh.Jagdish Bhandari r/o House No.1514, Block F, Adarsh Nagar, Nayan Gaon, District Mohali (Punjab).

                   ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.   Micromax House, 90-B, Sector 18, Gurgaon, PIN Code-122015,

2.   SP-AKS Telecom, SCO No.9, 1^st Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh, PIN 160022, Contact No.09872612525, TIN No-4510039526, Chandigarh

3.   Raju Traders, Wholse Sale and Retailer,  S.C.F.212, Near Local Bus Stand, Manimajra, Chandigarh through its Proprietor. 

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

Argued by:

Sh.Dhaman Dhir, Counsel for the complainant     alongwith complainant in person.

OPs exparte.

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.      In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile handset make – Mircomax A091 (Grey) from Opposite Party No.3 vide invoice dated 04.06.2014 for Rs.5,800/-(Annexure C-1), having warranty of one year. After few days of its purchase, the mobile handset started giving problem of display and, therefore, the same was landed with the service center i.e. Opposite Party No.2 vide job sheet dated 24.09.2014 for its repairs. According to the complainant, the same was returned to him on 27.11.2014 on payment of Rs.1000/- vide bill dated 27.11.2014 towards the repairs despite the fact that the same was covered under warranty.  It has further been averred that the mobile set was still not working well as it had developed some new problems as the same was not charging properly and the slot of the second SIM was also damaged.  The complainant again visited the service center on 03.12.2014  and made specific complaint regarding the damaged mobile handset. A copy of the job sheet dated 03.12.2014 issued to the complainant is Annexure C-4.  It has further been averred that on 28.01.2015, the complainant again visited the service center and he was provided with a damaged set again but he refused to accept the same. According to the complainant, the OP has failed to repair and change the mobile handset and as such he got served a legal notice dated 30.01.2015 upon the OPs but to no effect.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.     Despite due service through registered post, the OPs did not appear to contest the case and therefore,  they were proceeded against exparte.
3.     We have heard the Counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
4.     In his exparte evidence, the complainant has placed on record the invoice dated 04.06.2014 (Annexure C-1) vide which he purchased the mobile handset in question for Rs.5,800/-.  Annexure C-2 is the photocopy of the  job sheet dated 24.09.2014.  Annexure C-3 is photocopy copy of the bill dated 27.11.2014 vide which the OP No.2 charged a sum of Rs.1000/- on account of replacement of the LCD. Annexure C-4 is the copy of the job sheet dated 03.12.2014 from which it is proved that the complainant has handed over the mobile handset to OP No.2 with problem “4101 power does not switch on”.  The complainant has specifically stated in his affidavit that OP No.2 did not repair the mobile handset in question despite his repeated requests and rather it has handed over the defective damaged mobile handset on 28.01.2015 which he refused to accept.  The complainant has also placed on record a photocopy of the legal notice served upon the OPs. The OPs have failed to redress the genuine grievance of the complainant despite the fact that the mobile handset was within warranty. Non-repairing of the mobile handset within the warranty period despite service of the legal notice and repeated requests of the complainant itself gives an impression that the same is suffering from some major defect and that cannot be set right by effecting the repairs. The complainant has also placed, on record, his duly sworn affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint. The evidence led by the complainant has gone unrebutted. Furthermore, the Opposite Parties despite due service did not dare to contest the case and, as such, it can be concluded without any hesitation that either it admits the claim of the complainant or has nothing to say in the matter.   Hence, the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering the promised services to the complainant.
5.     In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed as under ;-

1. To replace the defective mobile handset in question with a new one of the same make and model or in the alternative to refund its price to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant
3. To pay Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) above shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

6.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

20/08/2015

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER