Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/677/2014

Kamaljit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax House - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

19 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/677/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	13/10/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	19/02/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Kamajit Singh S/o Sh. Jagtar Singh, R/o Vill. Khizargarh, Post office Banur, Tehsil and District Mohali.

 

…Complainant

Versus

 

[1]  Micromax House, 90B, Sector 18, Gurgaon, through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Director.

 

[2]  M/s Future Communication, SCO 28, 1^st Floor, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Director.

 

[3]  Anmol Watches & Electronics (P) Limited, SCO 1012-13, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Director.

….Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    SH.P.L. AHUJA              PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                MEMBER

                    

Present:      Complainant in person.

Opposite Parties ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

1.      Briefly stated, the Complainant had purchased one Micromax A091 mobile handset on 23.08.2014 from Opposite Party No.3 for Rs.6400/-, vide bill Annex.C-1. It has been alleged that since very beginning the said mobile handset was not working properly and on the directions of Opposite Party No.3, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 (authorized Service Centre), seeking replacement or refund the price of the mobile handset. However, the Opposite Party No.2 retained the mobile handset in question for repairs, vide job sheet dated 09.09.2014 (Annex.C-2). It has been further alleged that when after repeated requests and personal entreaties, the Opposite Party No.2 did not return his mobile handset, the Complainant lodged a Complaint on the toll free number of the Opposite Party No.1, but to no avail. It has been averred that the mobile handset is still lying with the Opposite Party No.2. Hence this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 27.11.2014 and 12.01.2015.  

 

3.      Complainant led evidence.

 

4.      We have heard the Complainant in person and have also perused the record.

 

5.      The ex-parte evidence of the Complainant shows that he purchased one Micromax A091 mobile handset from Opposite Party No.3 for Rs.6400/- vide Bill Annex. C-1. Annexure C-2 dated 9.9.2014 is the job-sheet with defect description as “display touch screen not working”. Due to occurrence of the fault so early, the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties for repair/ replacement, but the needful was not done. Rather Opposite Party No.2 kept the mobile handset in question in its possession and till date the same is lying with it.

 

6.      It is important to note here that Opposite Parties have not appeared to contest the claim of the Complainant and preferred to proceed ex-parte which draws an adverse inference against them. The evidence of the Complainant has gone unrebutted against them.

 

7.      We feel that non-providing of the proper services, non-rectification of the defect in the mobile handset that too keeping the same in their possession even being the mobile handset within the warranty period certainly caused physical and mental harassment to the Complainant, which proves deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

8.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are directed, jointly and severally, to:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.6400/- to the Complainant being the invoice price of the mobile handset. 

[b]  To pay a composite amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, causing mental & physical harassment to the Complainant and towards costs of litigation;

 

 

9.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a] above, apart from paying composite payment of Rs.5,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.

 

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

Announced

19^th February,2015                                      

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

“Dutt”