Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1178/2015

Binder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax Informatics Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ritesh Jindal

12 May 2016

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                    Complaint no. 1178                                                                                              

                                                                   Instituted on:  29.09.2015

                                                                   Decided on:    12.05.2016

 

Binder Singh son of Ram Sarup resident of village Chatha Nanhada, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.    

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

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

2.M/s Kings Electronics Micromax authorized Service Centre, Guru Nanak Colony, Main Road, Opposite Patwar Khana, Near Bus Stand Sangrur through its Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory.

3. M/s Gupta Enterprises , Geeta Bhawan Road, Sunam Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur through its Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory.  

      ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT       :    Shri Ritesh Jindal,  Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES NO.1&2    :    Shri  Ashish  Grover, Advocate                         

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTY No.3    :     Exparte.

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Binder Singh complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a Micromax Mobile Model A-99 from OP No.3 for Rs.6500/- vide invoice no. 4677 dated 02.02.2015 under one year warranty. In the month of July 2015, the said mobile set started giving problem of charging i.e. low battery &  battery  overheating for which the complainant approached the OP No.3 who advised the complainant to approach the OP No.2. Then the complainant approached OP No.2  which received the mobile set in question and issued a job sheet dated 07.07.2015 to the complainant and after a week  the complainant approached the OP No.2  to collect the set in question  but OP No.2 told the complainant that the same was sent to the company for its repair. The complainant approached the OP number 2 number of times for collecting the mobile set in question but the OP No.2 put off the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately told the complainant that the defect  is not curable / repairable. Then the complainant requested the OP No.2 to replace the same with new one as the same is within the warranty period but did not do so. The mobile set in question is  in the custody of OP no.2 since 07.07.2015. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed  to refund the purchase  price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.6500/-  along with interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-  on account of mental agony, harassment,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OP no.3 did not appear and as such OP no.3 was proceeded exparte on 30.11.2015.

3.             In reply filed by OPs No.1 &2,  it has been stated that the complainant approached the OP No.2 for problem of low battery and in this regard job sheet  was issued.  The defect was  rectified  and the complainant was called  to take back the mobile phone but till today complainant never came to take the mobile set and now the mobile set is in OK condition. The complainant never approached the OP No.2  rather OP no.2 called and asked him to take back the mobile set. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.  

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed evidence. On the  other hand, OPs No.1&2 have tendered document Ex.OPs1&2/1 and closed evidence.  

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OPs No.1&2, we find that the complainant had purchased  a Micromax mobile phone bearing model No. A-99 from OP No.3  on 02.02.2015 for an amount of Rs.6500/- under warranty of one year which is evident from  retail invoice number 4677 dated 02.02.2015  Ex.C-2 on record. The complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that in the month of July 2015, the mobile set in question  started giving problem of charging i.e. low battery and battery overheating  for which the complainant approached the OP no.2 but the problems could not be solved and defective set is also lying with the OP No.2.  To prove his version, the complainant has produced on record copy of retail invoice Ex.C-2 and copy of job sheet dated 07.07.2015 Ex.C-3.The Mobile set in question is lying with the OP no.2, as alleged by the complainant, is not disputed by the OPs rather the OP no.2 has stated that the defect in the mobile set was rectified and now it is in OK condition but the complainant never came to take the mobile set despite calls. Surprisingly, the OP no.2 has not produced any written document which could show that the complainant was called  for handing over the mobile set in question in OK condition. We feel that the OP no.2 has miserably failed to prove its case rather the complainant has fully proved his case.   

6.             For the reasons recorded above,  we find  that the mobile set  in question  developed  defects within the warranty period which could not be removed by the OPs meaning thereby there is manufacturing defect in it.  In this manner,  the OPs are deficient in service and as such we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs  to hand over the new mobile set of the same model in place of defective mobile set which is already lying with the OP No.2 or in the alternative to refund an amount of Rs.6500/- which is price amount of the mobile set in dispute  to the complainant. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.1000/- on account of mental pain, agony and litigation expenses.

6.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                May 12, 2016

 

 

 

  ( Sarita Garg)    ( K.C.Sharma)          (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                        Member          Member                                President