DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.286 of 19-07-2013

Decided on 28-11-2013

Mohinder Pal aged about 35 years S/o Ram Kishan R/o Gali No.2, Ward No.34, Amarpura Basti, Bathinda, Tehsil & District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Micromax India, Plot No.21/4, Block A, Narain Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi, through its authorized/competent person.

2.Micromax Industries Limited (Head Office), Micromax House, G 51 Udyog Vihar, Phase-5, Gurgaon 122001, Haryana, through its Managing Director/Manager Sales.

3.Bansal Trader, SSD Sabha Market, Near Santoshi Mata Mandir, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Partner/Proprietor.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Subhash Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Opposite parties ex-parte.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The instant complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act') by the complainant. The brief facts of the complaint are that on the allurement of the opposite party No.3, the complainant has purchased one Micromax A 56 model, mobile handset for Rs.6150/- vide bill No.630 dated 1.8.2012, from the opposite party No.3, manufactured by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2. The complainant started using the abovesaid mobile handset, after sometime it started giving problems in its operation as it often switched off automatically and everytime the complainant had to switch on the abovesaid mobile handset whenever he wanted to make the calls. There was also the problem of receiving the calls in the abovesaid mobile handset as there was no clarity. The software problem occurred in the abovesaid mobile handset again and again and its most of the applications were not working or responding its proximity resume failed. The complainant several times approached the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 vide job sheet No.90195-157484; 0912-175832 and 0912-1820539 and the service centre at Bathinda. The abovesaid mobile handset has been replaced two times, despite that the problem remained the same, its main reason is that in all the mobile handsets of same brand and specification there is a manufacturing defect and the company has failed to provide the proper software to the said mobile handsets. The alleged defects occurred in all the mobile handsets of the same model that has been given to the complainant by the opposite party No.3, due to this the mobile handset in question is giving the problem in its operation. The complainant further alleged that due to manufacturing defect in the mobile handset, he has not enjoyed its full benefits. Hence the present complaint filed by the complainant to seek the directions to the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.6150/-(cost of mobile handset) alongwith cost and compensation.

2. Registered notice has been sent to the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 vide postal receipt No.A RP281053580IN and vide postal receipt No.A RP281053593IN respectively on dated 6.9.2013, but none appeared on behalf of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and notice by hand/dasti has been sent to the opposite party No.3, the same has duly been received by Ram Gopal on dated 1.8.2013. Sh.Ram Gopal, Proprietor of the opposite party No.3 appeared before this Forum on dated 19.8.2013 and 3.9.2013, thereafter none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.3. Hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against all the opposite parties.

3. The complainant has led ex-parte evidence to support his allegations. He has produced Ex.C1 his own affidavit dated 18.7.2013; Ex.C2 photocopy of bill; Ex.C3 photocopy of letter dated 31.10.2012; Ex.C4 photocopy of letter dated 25.5.2013; Ex.C5 his own affidavit dated 7.11.2013; Ex.C6 photocopy of postal receipt and Ex.C7 photocopy of list of job cards.

4. The arguments advanced by the complainant heard at length. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the complainant perused.

5. The complainant has purchased one Micromax A 56 model, mobile handset for Rs.6150/- vide bill No.630 dated 1.8.2012, from the opposite party No.3, manufactured by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2. Soon after its purchase, the abovesaid mobile handset started giving problems in its operation as it often switched off automatically and everytime the complainant had to switch on the abovesaid mobile handset whenever he wanted to make the calls. There was also the problem of receiving the calls in the abovesaid mobile handset as there was no clarity. The complainant has lodged several complaints with the opposite party Nos.1 and 2, they issued him job sheets No.90195-157484; 0912-175832 and 0912-1820539. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 replaced the abovesaid mobile handset twice, but the problem remained the same as there is a manufacturing defect and the company failed to provide the proper software to the mobile handset in question and all the mobile handsets of same model.

6. No job sheet has been placed on file by the complainant, only Ex.C7 is placed on file, in which the job sheets numbers are mentioned but these are not mentioned either on the letter head of the authorized service centre of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 or on the letter pad of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2. Moreover the non-appearance of the opposite parties before this Forum confirms that there is inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile handset in question. In order to shed their liability, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have not appeared before this Forum, meaning thereby they have admitted the manufacturing defect in the mobile handset in question. As per Ex.C7, the job sheets numbers are issued to the complainant but despite taking his mobile handset thrice to the service centre and replacing his mobile handset twice, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 were unable to rectify his mobile handset, which amounts to deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2.

7. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs.3500/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and dismissed qua the opposite party No.3. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to refund the amount of Rs.6150/- to the complainant and at the same time the complainant will handover the mobile handset in question alongwith its all accessories to the opposite party Nos.1 and 2.

8. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

9. In case of non-compliance, the interest @ 9% per annum will yield on the amount of Rs.6150/- till realization.

10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum

28-11-2013

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member