Punjab

Moga

CC/15/47

Surinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax House - Opp.Party(s)

In person

04 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                     Complaint No. 47 of 2015

                                                                Instituted On: 21.07.2015

                                                  Decided On: 04.09.2015

 

Surinder Kumar, aged about 35 years, s/o Sh.Harbans Lal, resident of H.No.744, Ward No.26, Opposite Post Office, Purana Moga.

Complainant 

Versus

 

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

2. Cloudtall India Pvt. Ltd., S-405, L Ground Floor, Greater Kailash II, New Delhi-110048.

3. DTDC Courier, Moga, No.58-59, Baldev Complex, Court Road, near Tempo Stand, Moga.

         

Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint under section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

 

Coram:      Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

                    Smt Vinod Bala, Member

Present:      Sh.Surinder Kumar, complainant in person.

         Opposite party nos.1 to 3 exparte.

 

ORDER

(S.S.Panesar, President)

                  Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against Micromax House, 90B, Sector-18, Gurgaon-122015, Haryana and others (herein-after referred to as opposite parties)- directing them to provide the new mobile handset and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment suffered by the complainant due to negligence, unprofessional conduct of the opposite parties alongwith litigation expenses and any other relief to the complainant, which this Forum deems just and proper.

2.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that complainant purchased a new mobile handset i.e. Micromax Yu Yureka IMEI/ESN no.911401502393265/911401502427170 on 26^th February, 2015, through Amazon online site from opposite party no.2 vide bill no.HR-DEL2-144105041-968868, through net banking. The mobile handset carried the warranty of one year from the date of its sale. On 8.5.15 and 14.5.15, the complainant approached Micromax Yo Yureka on their official mail ID i.e. support@uplaygod.com for repair of proximity sensor as some internal defect arose in the said mobile handset. After a few days thereafter, the complainant got a call from Micromax Yu Yureka Customer Care that they did not have any service centre at Moga, therefore, DTDC courier company will collect mobile handset from the complainant for resolving the problem. On 17.6.15, the complainant got call from the DTDC courier and the complainant handed over the mobile handset with battery and back cover to opposite party no.3 at their Moga office. On 06.07.15 the complainant received the package from DTDC Courier and when the complainant opened the packet, he found that mobile handset was without battery and back cover. The complainant called Micromax Yu Yureka Customer care having no.18602122122 and also intimated them through mail ID i.e. support@uplaygod.com that the said mobile handset is without battery and back cover. The customer care Micromax Yu Yureka assured the complainant that customer executive will call him within 24 to 48 hours to resolve problem. In order to confirm the status of complaint, the complainant against called Micromax Yu Yureka Support on dated 9.7.15 and they told him to send phone without battery and back cover as described by their customer care executive. The complainant told that no such information is provided by customer executive and he did not receive any mail in this regard. Micromax Yu Yureka customer executive replied that they cannot help him in this matter and suggested the complainant to purchase a new battery and back cover. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, none put appearance on behalf of opposite parties, despite due service. As such, opposite parties were ordered to be proceeded exparte.

4.                In ex-parte evidence, the complainant Surinder Kumar appeared in witness box as his own witness and filed his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of his allegations made in the complaint. The complainant also produced on record copies of the documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and closed his exparte evidence.

5.                We have heard the complainant in person and have carefully gone through evidence on record.

6.                The evidence adduced by the complainant, in support of his case, has gone un-rebutted on record as the opposite parties suffered exparte wilfully and thereby impliedly admitted the allegations made in the complaint. It is proved on record that the complainant purchased new mobile handset i.e. Micromax Yu Yureka IMEI/ESN no.911401502393265/911401502427170 on 26^th February, 2015, through Amazon online site from opposite party no.2 vide bill no.HR-DEL2-144105041-968868, through net banking, copy of the bill is Ex.C2. The mobile set carried the warranty for a period of one year from the date of its purchase, copy of the warranty certificate accounts for Ex.C3. It is also proved on record that the mobile handset of the complainant was suffering from some internal defects. On 8^th May, 2015 and 12^th May, 2015 the complainant approached opposite party no.1 & 2 on their official mail ID i.e. support@uplaygod.com for repair of proximity sensor, copies of the mail IDs accounts for Ex.C4 to Ex.C7. After a few days, the complainant got a call from Micromax Yu Yureka Customer Care that they did not have any service centre at Moga, therefore, DTDC Courier company will collect mobile handset from the complainant for resolving problem. On 17.6.15, the complainant got call from the DTDC courier i.e. opposite party no.3 and the complainant handed over the mobile handset with battery and back cover for delivery to opposite party no.1 & 2. On 06.07.15, the complainant received the packet from DTDC Courier, but when the complainant opened the packet, he came to know that mobile handset was without battery and back cover, copies of the necessary correspondence between the complainant and opposite party nos.1 & 2, accounts for Ex.C4 to Ex.C7. The complainant also approached Customer care executive on the advice of opposite party nos.1 & 2. But however, they also refused to help the complainant in the matter in any manner, rather they suggested the complainant to purchase a new battery and back cover of the mobile handset in dispute.

7.                It becomes quite evident that opposite party nos.1 & 2 are deficient in service. The mobile handset happens to be within warranty cover, copy of warranty cover Ex.C3 bears witness to that fact. Opposite party nos.1 & 2 were not supposed to repair the mobile handset in dispute only, but they were also supposed to supply the mobile handset alongwith the battery and back cover. Because when the mobile handset was handed over to them by the complainant, it was having the battery and back cover. The case of the complainant has been that he is entitled to receive new mobile handset of the same company and make, but the same does not appeal to reason, because the complainant has failed to prove that the mobile handset was suffering from some manufacturing defect, which was beyond the scope of repairs. However, in our considered opinion, the complainant is entitled to get the mobile handset in dispute repaired to his satisfaction, but he is also entitled to get a new battery as well as back cover of the mobile handset in dispute from opposite party nos.1 & 2, without incurring any expenditure.

8.                No case is made out against opposite party no.3, because it is a courier company and no claim is directed against it as well. Consequently, complaint against opposite party no.3 fails and is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. However, opposite party no.1 & 2 are directed to repair the mobile handset in dispute to the satisfaction of the complainant and the complainant is also entitled to get a new battery and back cover of the mobile handset in dispute within a period of 30 days of passing of the order without making any payment. Complaint stands allowed exparte accordingly. If the compliance of the order is not made within stipulated period, the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order complied with through indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 

                                       (Vinod Bala)                  (S.S. Panesar)

                                       Member                          President

 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:04.09.2015.