Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1085/2015

Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax Informatics limited - Opp.Party(s)

Shri K.S.Toor

05 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                  

                                                Complaint No.  1085

                                                Instituted on:    17.09.2015

                                                Decided on:       05.07.2016

 

Kuldeep Singh son of Shri Bira Singh, resident of Near Ravidas Mandir, Village Khadial, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                       

                                        Versus

 

1.             Micromax Informatics Limited, Micromax House 90-B, Sector 18, Gurgaon-122015 through its Managing Director.

2.             M/s. Kings Electronics, Micromax Authorised Service Centre, Opposite BSNL Park, Outside Nabha Gate, Sangrur, through its Authorised Signatory.

3.             Vishnu Mobile Plaza, Geeta Bhawan Road, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur through its Proprietor/Partner.                                                  …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri K.S.Toor, 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 Kuldeep 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 Micrmax mobile set model A-99 (dual sim) from OP number 3  for Rs.6700/- vide invoice number 109 dated 19.04.2014 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 July, 2015, the complainant was shocked to see that the mobile set in question started to create problem of blank display and as such, the complainant immediately approached OP number 3 for rectification the said defect of the mobile, who advised the complainant to approach OP umber 2, as such the complainant approached OP number 2, who after checking the mobile advised the complainant to hand over the mobile set to it and to collect the same after a period of 15 days and issued the job sheet dated 28.7.2015 in this respect. It is further averred that thereafter the complainant approached OP number 2 in the second week of August, 2015 and requested to return the mobile set, but the OP number 2 put off the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly the mobile set in question was not returned to the complainant despite his best efforts and repeated visits to the OP number 2. Thus, 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.6700/- 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 20.11.2015.

 

3.             In reply filed by OPs number 1 and 2, 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 problem of ‘blank display in the mobile set against which the job sheet was issued. It is admitted further that the defect of the mobile set was rectified and called the complainant to take back the same, but he never approached the OPs to get the same.  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 dated 18.04.2015 issued by OP number 3 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.6700/-, 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 28.07.2015 with the problem ‘display blank’, as is evident from the copy of job card sheet EX.C-3, whereas the OP number 1 has denied that the complainant never approached OP number 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 visited it 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 learned counsel for OP number 2 has also produced  his own affidavit 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 working properly.  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 (if it was in working order) 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 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.6700/- being the cost of the mobile set along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 17.9.2015 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 5, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member