Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/523

Sunil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax Informatics Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Rishi Jasra

24 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 523 of 03.09.2015

Date of Decision          :   24.10.2016

 

Sunil Kumar son of Shri Punni Lal, resident of 1907, Maharaj Nagar, near Circuit House, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus 

1.Mircomax Informatics Limited, 21/14-A, Phase II, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi-110028 through its M.D./Director.

IInd address:-

90-B, Sector 18, Gurgaon, Haryana-122015.

2.M/s R.S.Communication, Hambran Road, Haibowal Khurd, Ludhiana.

3.M/s.SGS Communication, Shop No.6, Pearl Palace, Basement Ghumar Mandi, Ludhiana.

..…Opposite parties

 

 (COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS. VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For Complainant                     :       Sh.Rishi Jasra, Advocate

For OP1                         :       Sh.Rishi Bansal, Advocate

For OP2                         :       Sh.Swaraj Sooden, Advocate

For OP3                         :       Ex-parte vide order dated 15.10.2015

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant purchased Micromax Mobile bearing IMEI No.91140601161110116118 from OP2 for consideration of Rs.1680/- vide bill No.2445 dated 11.3.2015 with assurance that this mobile manufactured by a company of repute and will be free from all defects. However, in July 2015, some manufacturing defect surfaced in the mobile. Screen display was totally stopped. Thereafter, complainant approached OP2, who referred him to the service station i.e. OP3. Complainant reached in the office of OP3 on 16.7.2015 and reported about the problem. That problem arose within the warranty period. OP3 kept the mobile with him and called upon the complainant to visit after 7 days. Job sheet dated 16.7.2015 was issued. Thereafter, when the complainant contacted OP3 again, then he was called upon to visit after three days. Mobile phone was not returned to the complainant. Thereafter, complainant made call to the customer care unit of OP1, the manufacturer. OP1 assured for repair of the mobile within 7-10 days, but till date, the mobile phone has not been handed over to the complainant after removing the defects. Mobile phone was purchased by the complainant for personal use. By pleading deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice by Ops, prayer made for directing Ops to return the mobile of the complainant after removing the defects free of costs or in the alternative to give new mobile of same model free of costs. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.50,000/- and legal expenses of Rs.11000/- claimed by submitting that legal notice dated 20.8.2015 even was served on Ops for calling upon them to return the mobile free from defects.

2.                 Counsel for OP1 suffered statement that he is not to file written statement, but OP1 is ready to refund the cost of handset i.e. Rs.1680/- in lump-sum. That statement of counsel for OP1 was recorded on 18.12.2015, but complainant through recorded statement of 12.1.2016 claimed that he is not satisfied with the offer put forth by counsel for OP1, but he is to pursue the complaint.

3.                Written statement by OP2 filed, wherein pleaded interalia as              if complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complaint is bad due to non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and the complainant has no cause of action against OP2. Admittedly, the mobile phone in question was purchased by the complainant from OP3. On every bill issued by OP2, a note is always given at the bottom that mobile set guarantee at the service centre only, which means that after sale of the mobile set, OP2 has nothing to do with the defects in the sold mobile set. It is claimed that after sale of the mobile set, concern remains between the company and the purchaser of the mobile. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by praying for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                OP3 is ex-parte in this case.  

5.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and thereafter, his counsel closed the evidence.

6.                Counsel for OP1 suffered statement on21.09.2016 that he is not to lead any evidence on behalf of OP1 because OP1 still ready to settle the claim of the complainant by paying Rs.1680/-.

7.                On the other hand, counsel for OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA2 of Mrs.Shashi Bala, Proprietor OP2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

8.                          Arguments heard and records gone through minutely. Written arguments have not been submitted in this case. 

9.                Mobile phone in question was purchased by the complainant through invoice Ex.C1 for consideration of Rs.1680/- on 11.3.2015 from OP2. On bill Ex.C1 itself it is mentioned that mobile set guarantee at service centre, which certainly means that guarantee of the mobile phone to be provided by the service centre or by the manufacturer. In view of recording of this note in clear cut term on invoice Ex.C1, certainly complainant got knowledge of this guarantee clause. So, OP2 being seller cannot be held liable for any defect in the mobile phone or consequences thereof.

10.              As already referred above, counsel for OP1 offered to pay Rs.1680/- in lump-sum, the price of the mobile phone to the complainant vide statement dated 18.12.2015 i.e. on the second date of  appearance by  OP1 through     counsel. So, certainly OP1 expressed desire to settle the claim of the complainant at earliest, but the complainant remained adamant in not accepting that offer and that is why case had to be posted for the evidence of complainant. Rather, the complainant himself through recorded statement on 12.1.2016 claimed that he is to pursue the case and as such, contest is raised by the complainant and not by    OP1, the manufacturer. However, fault lay with  OP1 in not settling the claim      of the complainant before filing of the complaint, despite service of legal notice Ex.C6 dated 20.8.2015 through postal receipts Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and as such, OP1 liable to pay meager amount of litigation expenses because contest after appearance qua refund of the price amount is not raised at all.

11.              It is contended by counsel for the complainant that mobile phone is still lying with the service centre and reliance on job sheet Ex.C7 in this respect has been placed. Even if the mobile phone in question is defective or may be with OP3 i.e. the service centre, despite that counsel for OP1 has offered to return the full price of the mobile and as such, genuine offer put forth at earliest by OP1 for settling the claim. So, meager compensation amount for mental harassment needs be allowed, particularly when the complainant himself contested the claim without putting counter offer through recorded statement of 12.1.2016.

12.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, the present complaint allowed in terms that OP1 will refund Rs.1680/-, price of mobile set in question to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.500/-(Rupees Five Hundred only) and litigation costs of Rs.500/-(Rupees Five Hundred Only) more allowed in favour of the complainant and against OP1 only. Payment of these compensation and litigation expenses  be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of  this order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

13.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                      (Vinod Bala)                                (G.K.Dhir)

                       Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:24.10.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.