BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.378 of 2014

Date of Instt. 29.10.2014

Date of Decision :27.03.2015

Mandeep aged about 35 years son of Narinder Singh R/o H.No.72, Kabir Avenue, Ladhewali, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Micromax House, 697, Udhyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgoan, New Delhi-122016, through its Partner/Chairman/Director.

2. M/s Mobile House EK-231/1, Old Division No.3, Market, Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar through its Prop.

3. M/s Gopal Service Centre, Authorized Service Centre, Micromax, Shop No.36, Silver Plaza Complex, Opposite Sanjog Palace, Sodal Road, Jalandhar through its Manager.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Bipan Modi Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Manuj Aggarwal Adv., counsel for OP No.1.

Opposite parties No.2 and 3 exparte.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant had purchased one mobile phone make Micromax, colour Grey, Model A-120, IMEI No.911367105076740, vide cash invoice No.4652 dated 29.7.2014 for Rs.9500/- from opposite party no.2. It was having warranty of one year. On or around 28.8.2014 this phone developed problem and its 5405 applications stopped functioning, its application crashed and its display became blank. The complainant approached opposite party No.2, who advised the complainant to contact the opposite party No.3 i.e authorized service centre of Micromax Mobiles, for repairs. The complainant accordingly went to opposite party No.3, who informed the complainant that as the defect was major so the phone had to be handed over to them for repairs, which the complainant handed over his handset in question to opposite party No.2 vide job card dated 29.8.2014 and confirmed that the same is under warranty. The opposite party No.3 accepted the phone for repair under warranty and promised to repair it within a week. The opposite party No.3 has not repaired the phone so far nor is it offering any satisfactory explanation depsite the repeated calls and repeated visits by the complainant in this regard till today. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile handset in question. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice opposite parties No.2 and 3 did not appear and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

3. However, Sh.Manuj Aggarwal Advocate appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1 but did not file any written statement inspite of number of opportunities afforded to him for this purpose. Consequently, opposite party No.1 was debarred from filing written statement vide order dated 24.2.2015.

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..C10 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite party No.1.

6. The complainant purchased Micromax mobile hand set in question from opposite party No.2 vide retail invoice dated 29.7.2014 Ex.C1 for Rs.9500/-. Counsel for the complainant contended that soon after purchase i.e around 28.8.2014 the mobile handset in question developed problem and its 5405 applications stopped functioning and same crashed and display became blank. He has further contended that complainant handed over the mobile handset to opposite party No.3 i.e service centre of opposite party No.1 who issued job card dated 29.8.2014 Ex.C2 wherein the above said problems are mentioned. Counsel for the complainant further contended that the opposite party No.3 has not returned the mobile handset after rectifying the defects. He further contended that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile handset and opposite parties should be directed to refund its price to him. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by leaned counsel for the complainant. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in support of his version. On the other hand, opposite parties No.2 and 3 have not come present to contest the claim of the complainant. Further opposite party No.1 although appeared through counsel but did not file any statement rebutting the allegations of the complainant. So, we do not find any convincing reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant.

7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.1 & 3 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