View 2291 Cases Against Micromax
View 9758 Cases Against Mobile
View 361 Cases Against Mobile World
Naresh S/o Guljar Singh filed a consumer case on 20 Aug 2015 against Micromax Infomatics Ltd., M/s Harsh Communication., Luxmi Mobile World in the Karnal Consumer Court. The case no is 307/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 04 Sep 2015.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint No.307 of 2014
Date of instt. 13.11.2014
Date of decision:20 .08.2015
Naresh son of Sh.Guljar Singh resident of VPO Garhi Birbal district Karnal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1.Micromax Informatics Ltd.Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi 110028 through its Manager.
2.M/s Harsh Communications (HR)SCO No.364, First Floor, Mugal Canal, Karnal 132001 through its authorized signatory.
3. Luxmi Mobile World, Main Bazar, Indri District Karnal through its authorized signatory.
……… Opposite Parties.
Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act.
Before Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.
Smt. Shashi Sharma ………Member.
Sh.Anil Sharma…… Member.
Present: Sh.C.B.Mandhan Advocate for the complainant.
Ops ex parte.
ORDER:
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the averments that complainant purchased a mobile of Micromax A091 IMEI NO.911359450912777 and 911359450912785 on 20.6.2014. There was touch problem and software also disturbed, due to which the mobile used to switch off and switch on the screen at own during call as well as while dialing number for making calls. The complainant approached the OP no.2 service centre of the company who checked the mobile and after some time handed over the same to him assuring that there would not be such problem in future. However, on 12.9.2014 the said problem again arose and he again approached the OP no.2, who charged Rs.500/- from him, even during warranty period and returned the mobile assuring that the same was fully checked and no problem would occur. Again, the same problem arose in the mobile and when the complainant approached the Ops and requested for replacing the mobile, they paid no heed to his requests. Ultimately, he got served legal notice upon the Ops on 22.09.2014, but the same did not yield any result. In this way, there was deficiency in services on the part of the Ops on account of which the complainant has suffered mental pain and sufferings apart from financial loss.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops. None put into appearance on behalf of the OP No.2, therefore, ex parte proceedings were initiated against it vide order dated 19.12.2014. The OP no.1 was duly served through registered post for 21.4.2015, but none appeared on its behalf on that day, therefore, it was also proceeded against ex parte. Sh.Kapil representative of OP no.3 appeared on 21.4.2015, but none appeared on its behalf on 2.7.2015, therefore, it was also proceeded against exparte.
3. In ex parte evidence, complainant filed his affidavit Ex.C1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case file very carefully.
5. The complainant purchased a mobile of Micromax A091 IMEI NO.911359450912777 and 911359450912785 on 20.6.2014 from OP No.3, as is evident from warranty card Ex.C9. Job sheet Ex.C8 dated 12.9.2014 shows that Key(s) pad was not working and Rs.250/- were charged for repairs. As per the case of the complainant, mobile was defective having touch problem and apart from that it used to switch off and switch on during calls as well as while dialing numbers for calling. The complainant has also got issued a registered legal notice to the Ops , the copy of which is Ex.C1 and postal receipts and acknowledgements in that regard are Ex.C2 to Ex.C7.The complainant has also filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A reiterating the allegations made in the complaint. This evidence of the complainant has gone completely unrebutted and unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. From the evidence on record it stands established that mobile purchased by the complainant is defective and there was deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.
6. As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to replace the mobile phone of the complainant with a new one, of the same model. The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- for the mental harassment caused to him and for the litigation expenses. The Ops shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
dated:20.08.2015
(K.C.Sharma)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Smt.Shashi Sharma) (Anil Sharma)
Member. Member.
Present: Sh.C.B.Mandhan Advocate for the complainant.
Ops ex parte.
Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
dated:20.08.2015
(K.C.Sharma)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Smt.Shashi Sharma) (Anil Sharma)
Member. Member.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.