Haryana

Karnal

331/2014

Vinod S/o Bishambhar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax Infomatics Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Nafe Singh

20 Dec 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.331 of 2014

                                                         Date of instt. 17.12.2014

                                                         Date of decision:20.12.2017

 

Vinod son of Shri Bishambhar Singh, resident of House no.486/12, Jyothi Nagar, Karnal.

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

 

1. Micromax Informatics Ltd. plot no.21/14, Block-A, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi.

2. M/s Spectacular Media Marketing Pvt. Ltd., First Floor, MPI no.4948, plot no.47, opp. Hindi Park Daryaganj, New Delhi. (given up)

3. Micromax Authorized Service Centre SCO no.364 1^st floor, Mugal Canal Karnal.

                                          

                                                                     …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

      Ms. Veena Rani ………..Member.

      Sh. Anil Sharma………Member

             

 

 Present  Shri Nafe Singh Advocate for complainant.

               Opposite parties no.1 and 3 exparte.

                Opposite party no.2 given up.

               

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that on 14.3.2014 he placed an order no.941187687 sub order no.74415845 for one piece Micromax Superfone A85 android mobile phone black in colour. The same was dispatched through Ecom express on 15.03.2014. Having good reputation of OPs no.1 to 3 the complainant has purchased the said phone alongwith charger from OP no.2 on 14.3.2014 vide bill no.DEL/032014/7765 for a sum of Rs.5499/-. The said amount was given in cash to the delivery man on receiving the said mobile on 15.3.2014. Since the purchase of the said mobile phone and charger, the mobile phone was not working properly and body of the mobile phone was found cracked. In that regard the complainant approached the OPs no.1 to 3 various times to rectify the problem or to change the same with new one. But the OPs no.1 to 3 always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and did not rectify the defect. Then he sent a legal notice to the OPs no.1 and 3 through his counsel vide which he requested the OPs to rectify the mobile set in question or to return the cost of the same, but OPs failed to do so. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OPs no.1 and 3 did not appear and proceeded against exparte by the order of this Forum dated 27.3.2017.

3.             OP no.3 given up by the complainant being unnecessary party, vide order dated 14.10.2016.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 14.9.2017.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and have also gone through the record on file carefully.

6.             The complainant purchased a mobile Micromax Superfone A85 from OP no.2 for a sum of Rs.5499/ on 14.3.2014. As per allegations of the complainant since the purchase of the mobile set it was not working properly and body of the same was found cracked. So, he reported the matter to OPs no.1 to 3, who kept the hand set for rectification of defects, but they did not rectify the defects and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. The version of the complainant is supported by his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9. On the other hand, there is no evidence of the opposite parties as the opposite parties have been proceeded against exparte. Thus, evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. In these circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the mobile set of the complainant is defective from the very beginning and the OPs failed to resolve his grievance. Hence the opposite parties are deficient in providing service to the complainant.

7.             As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the mobile set in question with new one of the same model as purchased by the complainant. However, it is made clear if the mobile set of the same model as purchased by the complainant is not available with the opposite parties, then the opposite parties will return Rs.5499/- the value of the mobile set to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.1100/- as cost of litigation and harassment etc. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 20.12.2017

                                                                       

                                                                      President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                         Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                        (Veena Rani)       (Anil Sharma)

                          Member                Member