Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1398/2015

Dilpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax Infomatics Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ritesh Jindal

13 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                       

                                                Complaint No.  1398

                                                Instituted on:    26.10.2015

                                                Decided on:       13.07.2016

 

Dilpreet Singh son of Gurmail Singh, resident of House No.138, Backside of Basant Hospital, Sunam-148 028 Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Micromax Informatics Limited, Micromax House 90-B, Sector -18, Gurgaon-122 015 through its Managing Director/Authorised signatory.

2.             M/s.Kings Electronics Micromax Authorised Service Centre, Thales Baag, Opposite BSNL Park, Sangrur Tehsil and district Sangrur 148 001 through its proprietor/Manager/ authorised signatory.

3.             M/s. Bansal Telecom, unit of M/s. Roshan Lal Puran Chand, UGF/21, First Floor, Omaxe Mall, Tehsil and District Patiala through its proprietor/Manager/authorised signatory.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Ritesh Jindal, Adv.

For OP No.1&2         :               Shri Ashish Grover, Adv.

For OP No.3             :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Dilpreet Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Micromax mobile set model Micromax Canvas 4+ (A-315)  from OP number 3  on 27.5.2015 for Rs.11,400/- vide invoice number 1223 dated 27.5.2015 with one year warranty of the mobile set against any manufacturing defect or poor workmanship. It is further averred in the complaint that in the month of September, 2015 the problems of camera giving bad image, display touch screen not working, and low charging of battery arose therein, as such he informed OP number 3 about the problems, but the OP number 3 advised the complainant to approach OP number 2, as such the complainant approached OP number 2 and the OP number 2 told  the complainant to leave the mobile set with him and to collect the same after one week and issued job card sheet bearing number N090336-1015-19664710 dated 10.10.2015 by mentioning thereon the defects arose in the mobile set in question. As such, the complainant approached OP number 2 to get the delivery of the mobile set after a week and as such the complainant was advised to come after two days, but when approached after two days, it was asked by the OP number 2 to the complainant that the mobile set is beyond repairs.  The complainant requested the OP number 2 to replace the mobile set with a new one, but nothing was done. It has been stated further that the mobile set is in the custody of the OP number 1 since 10.10.2015. As such,  alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund him the purchase price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.11,400/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 3 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 3 was proceeded exparte on 31.12.2015.

 

3.             In reply filed by OPs number 1 and 2, legal objections are taken up that the complaint is not maintainable and that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint and the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits,  it is admitted that the complainant purchased the mobile set in question from OP number 3. It is further admitted that the complainant approached OP number 2 for the defects in the mobile set on 10.10.2015, of which the job sheet was issued to the complainant. It is further stated that the mobile was damaged with water which is not covered under the warranty and this fact was disclosed to the complainant, but despite that the complainant left the mobile set.  It is stated that the complainant is himself in fault by not taking back the mobile set from the OP number 2. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1  and 2 has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3  copy of job sheet and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 and 2  has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 affidavit of Nirbhai Singh and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.               Ex.C-2 is the copy of the invoice issued by OP number 3 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.11,400/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set and availed the services of the OP number 3, which has been manufactured by OP number 1.  It is further an admitted fact of the complainant that the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant became defective on 10.10.2015 during the warranty period and suffered various problems, such as, camera giving bad image, display touch screen not working and low charging problems, as is evident from the copy of job card sheet Ex.C-3. Further it is an admitted fact of the Ops that the mobile set in question was having one year warranty against any of the defects.  It is worth mentioning here that the OP number 3 chose to remain exparte and even did not appear to deny this allegation of the complainant that he approached OP number 1 to get the problem of the mobile set rectified. Further the complainant has also produced his own sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 to support his averments in the complaint.  On the other hand, the stand of the OPs number 1 and 2 is that the mobile set in question was damaged due to water logging therein and as such the mobile set is not covered under the warranty terms and conditions.  But, to prove this fact, the Ops have produced nothing on record much less expert report of any independent expert/engineer. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has also produced  the sworn affidavit of one Nirbhai Singh as Ex.OP1&2/1, wherein it has been stated that after receipt of the mobile set from the complainant, the complainant never came back to get back the mobile set and that there is no negligence on the part of the OPs. It is worth mentioning here that the Ops have not produced any expert report to show that the mobile set is water logged.  Moreover, the OPs have not produced any documentary evidence to show that they ever called the complainant to get back the delivery of the mobile set and even during the present proceedings the OP number 2 did not make any efforts/offer to deliver the mobile set in question to the complainant. There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they did not return the mobile set in question to the complainant and kept the same with them without any reason.    In the circumstances, it is clear that the mobile set in question supplied to the complainant is defective one which is beyond repairs.     As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. 

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs number 1 and 2 to deliver the complainant a new mobile set of the same make and model or in the alternative to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.11,400/- being the cost of the mobile set along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 26.10.2015 till realisation.  The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2500/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                July 13, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member