DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.313 of 23.12.2015
Decided on: 8.3.2017
Parminder Singh aged about 36 years s/o Baldev Singh R/o # 115, Street No.3, Sunder Nagar, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Micromax House, 697 Udyog Vihar, Phase V, Gurgaon, Haryana, through its Managing Director.
2. M/s Ganesh Electrical,SCO 27, 1st Floor, City Centre, Near 22 No.Phatak, Bhupindra Road, Patiala ( authorized service centre of Micromax Mobile)
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.S.K.Verma,Advocate, counsel for complainant.
None for Opposite Parties No.1&2
ORDER
SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER
The complainant purchased one mobile phone make Micromax Canvas Nitro from Easy Day (Bharti Retail Ltd.) OMAXE Mall, Patiala for an amount of Rs.11,879/- on 17.2.2015. At the time of the said purchase, one year warranty for any kind of defect in the mobile phone was given to the complainant. It is averred that in the month of September , the said mobile phone started giving problem of ‘Applications Loss of user Data, display touch screen not working and sensor not working. The complainant approached OP no.2 and deposited the mobile phone with it. The complainant visited OP no.2 time and again for about 15 days but OP no.2 did not repair the mobile phone in question till the filing of the present complaint. The complainant made various telephonic calls to OP no.2 but every time the complainant was told to come after 15 days. The complainant underwent a lot of mental agony, harassment and humiliation. Ultimately, he was forced to approach the Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act),1986.
2. On notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed their reply to the complaint. After admitting the fact that the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP no.2 on 29.9.2015 and OP no.2 issued a job sheet for the same, has denied all the allegations made in the complaint and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3. The complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to Ex.C3 and his counsel closed the evidence.
Whereas the OP failed to produce any evidence on record.
4. The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and gone through the evidence on record.
5. Ex.C1 is the copy of invoice whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone from Easy Day (Bharti Retail Ltd.) on 17.2.2015 for a sum of Rs.11,879/-.Ex.C2 is the job sheet dated 29.9.2015 vide which the complainant deposited the mobile phone with Op no.2 and since 29.9.2015 the mobile phone in question has been lying with OP no.2 who kept on lingering on the matter by telling the complainant to collect the mobile phone after 15 days. Even, today the mobile phone is lying with OP no.2 who has neither rectified the problem nor returned the same to the complainant. The defect is occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period and the OP no.2 was bound to rectify the same which it failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on its part.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to OPs no.1&2 to rectify the defect in the mobile phone and if that is not possible to replace it with a new of the same make with requisite warranty and if that is not possible to refund an amount of Rs.11,879/-, the same being the price of the mobile phone. O.Ps. are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant, which is inclusive of the cost of litigation. Order be complied by OPs within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. Certified copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:8.3.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
