Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/441/2017

Supriya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax House - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

03 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/441/2017
Date of Institution	:	05/06/2017
Date of Decision	:	03/11/2017

 

Supriya d/o Sh. Satish Kumar, previously resident of H.No.1604, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh, U.T., now resident at H.No.168, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh 160020.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Micromax House, 90B, Sector-18, Gurgaon-122015, Haryana through its Managing Director.

2.     M/s Abacus Systems, SCO No.54, First Floor, Near Post Office, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh through its Proprietor.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	OPs ex-parte

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 26.10.2016, the complainant purchased a Micromax Canvas 5 mobile phone from Amazon.in for a sum of Rs.7,499/-. The said mobile phone worked properly till 18.3.2017 and thereafter it stopped working.  The complainant went to the service centre (OP-2) to get the handset repaired and it was returned on the same day after installing a software.  However, when the complainant’s father on the next day started using the instrument, it again hanged and on the same day he went to the service centre where it was directed to leave the instrument and take back the same after 4-5 days.  Thereafter, the complainant visited the service centre a number of times, but, every time she was put off and the OPs failed to hand over the repaired handset to her.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Pursuant to the notice issued, initially Sh. Amandeep Singh and Sh. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocates appeared on behalf of OP-1 on two different dates and the case was adjourned for filing vakalatnama, reply and evidence. However, on 13.9.2017, neither anybody appeared on behalf of OP-1 nor reply and evidence were filed. Accordingly, OP-1 was proceeded ex-parte.       
3.         OP-2 did not appear despite due service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 26.7.2017.
4.         The complainant led evidence in support of her contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record.
6.         The case of the complainant is that she purchased one Micromax Canvas 5 mobile handset through online for Rs.7,499/- from Amazon.in.  Annexure C-1 is the bill alongwith which two job sheets dated 18.3.2017 and 23.3.2017 are attached. As per the case of the complainant, the handset in question became defective on 18.3.2017 and after a few days again it started giving problem and, therefore, the same was submitted with OP-2 for the necessary repairs. It has been alleged that neither the handset in question has been repaired nor the same has been returned to the complainant till date.
7.         OPs did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte.  This act of the OPs draws an adverse inference against them.  The non-appearance of the OPs shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant.  Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. 
8.         A perusal of the job sheets reveal that the handset became defective within the warranty period, but, as the same has neither been repaired nor returned by the OPs to the complainant, the same points out that they indulged in unfair trade practice which certainly caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant. The acts of the OPs in non-providing proper services within the warranty period, retaining the handset in their possession, till date, and forcing the complainant first to visit the service centre and then to knock the doors of this Forum certainly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
9.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To immediately refund the invoice value of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.7,499/- to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to her;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation.

10.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
03/11/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member