BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.366 of 2014
Date of Instt. 20.10.2014
Date of Decision :24.03.2015
Vikram Singh aged about 33 years son of Ajit Singh R/o H.No.776, Mohalla Chandan Nagar, Kartarpur, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1.Micromax House, 90B, Sector-18, Gurgaon-122015.
2. Gopal Telecom, EH-198, Shop No.2(GF), Civil Lines, G.T.Road, Near Gujrat Palace, Jalandhar.
3. Mobile House C/o Chadha Mobile House Pvt Ltd, Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagata Singh Chowk, Jalandhar.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint under section 1 2 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Sunil Thapar 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 visited in the showroom of opposite party No.3 for the purchase of mobile and the complainant had purchased a mobile make Micromax Canvas-4 Model A-210 bearing IMEI No.911316302728496 and 91131630293 2494 on the same day through bill/receipt No.39084 of 30.10.2013 for Rs.17,300/- and the opposite party No.3 had given one year guarantee and also assured that if any problem will come in the mobile then the same shall be replaced. In the month of August 2014, the mobile started giving problems, then the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 to replace the same but opposite party No.3 refused to replace the mobile and did not bother the genuine request of the complainant. Till today the opposite parties have not replaced the mobile. Then the complainant immediately gave complaint to opposite party No.2 against the same and the opposite party No.2 has taken the mobile for its repair against job sheet No.090319-0814-14471838 dated 12.8.2014 and the opposite party No.2 has returned the above said mobile to the complainant on 26.8.2014 and when the complainant switched on the mobile then he came to know that the mobile was giving same problem and the keys of the mobile were not working and on the same day the complainant again approached the opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 again took the mobile for its repair and issued job sheet No.N090319-0814-11750882 dated 26.8.2014 and they assured the complainant that his mobile will be returned to him within 7 days but the opposite party No.2 has not given the mobile of the complainant within time. Thereafter the complainant sent email to opposite party No.1 regarding the above said problem of mobile but no satisfactory reply was given by the opposite party no.1 to the complainant. Many telephonic calls were made to opposite parties No.1 and 2 but they did not pay any heed towards his problem. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace his mobile handset or to return its price i.e Rs.17,300/- alongwith interest. 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. Opposite party No.1 appeared through Sh.Manuj Aggarwal Advocate but did not file any reply inspite of number of opportunities afforded to it for this purpose.
4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed evidence.
5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite party No.1.
6. Complainant purchased the mobile handset in question for Rs.17,300/- vide retail invoice dated 30.10.2013 Ex.C1 from opposite party No.3. According to the complainant, in August 2014, the mobile started giving problems and thereafter he approached opposite party No.2 i.e service centre who issued job sheet dated 12.8.2014 Ex.C4 but when the handset was returned to him on 26.8.2014 he came to know that mobile handset was giving the same problem and keys of the mobile handset were not working. Further according to the complainant, on the same day, he again approached opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 received the handset and issued job sheet dated 26.8.2014 Ex.C5 and assured him that his mobile handset will be returned to him within 7 days but opposite parties did not give the mobile handset within time. Further according to complainant, he sent email to the opposite party No.1 regarding the above said problem but no satisfactory reply was given by the opposite party No.1. Further according to the complainant many telephonic calls were made to opposite parties No.1 and 2 but they did not pay any heed towards his problem and thereafter he served a legal notice dated 17.9.2014 Ex.C2. Ex.C3 are postal receipts regarding sending of notice to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No.2 and 3 have not come present to contest the version of the complainant. Opposite party No.1 has although appeared through counsel but has not filed any written reply rebutting the allegation of the complainant. So, it appears that opposite parties have noting to say in the matter. So we do not find any convincing reasons to disbelieve the version of the complainant.
7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.1 and 2 are directed to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one of the same make and model after receiving the old mobile handset from him or in the alternative to refund its price to him within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is also awarded Rs.2000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia
24.03.2015 Member Member President
