DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                     Consumer Complaint No. 81 of 2017

                                               Date of institution:  07.02.2017

                                               Date of decision   :  14.12.2017

Darbara Singh son of Amar Singh, VPO Sohana, Tehsil and District SAS Nagar.

……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Micromax Informatics Ltd., Managing Director/Chairman Micromax House 90B, Sector 18, Gurgaon Pin Code 122015

2.     Gaurav Communications, Near Gurudwara Singh Saheedan, Main Market, Mauli Road, Sohana, Tehsil and District SAS Nagar.

3.     M/s. Luxmi Communication, SCF 78, Ist Floor, Phase-2, Mohali.

                                                          ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President 

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Shri D.S. Nirban, counsel for the complainant.

                OPs exparte.

ORDER

By Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

                Complainant Darbara Singh has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant had purchased Mobile Phone Make Micromax Mobile Model Q411 for Rs.7,600/- from OP No.2 vide bill No.541 dated 31.10.2016. After few days of its purchase, the mobile started giving trouble like automatically switched off and getting heated up very quickly. The complainant went to OP No.3 for getting the mobile repaired. After some repairs the service centre handed over the mobile to the complainant that it has been repaired and will work satisfactorily.  After some days the complainant again noticed that the mobile is not working properly and still getting heated up and started hanging and its speaker was also not working properly. The complainant visited OP No.3 on 21.07.2016 and OP No.3 kept the mobile with it and handed over copy of job sheet dated 21.07.2016 to the complainant.  After one month an employee of OP No.3 asked the complainant to collect the mobile as it has been repaired and the reason for delay was informed that the faulty part of the mobile was not available  which has been demanded from Head Office of the company.  The complainant collected the mobile and when he reached home he put the mobile for charging but it started giving same troubles again and there was no improvement in the functioning of the mobile. On the next day morning the complainant went to OP No.3 and after inspection OP No.3 asked the complainant to collect the phone in the evening. In the evening the OP No.3 handed over the mobile to the complainant without any repairs.  The mobile is not working properly and giving troubles due to technical defect. As the mobile could not be repaired by OP No.3, the complainant requested for replacement which was refused. The complainant got served legal notice dated 19.10.2016 but no reply was received from the OP.   The mobile set provided by OP No.1 has manufacturing defect and not worked as per specifications/features. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to replace the mobile with new similar specifications/features or refund him Rs.7600/- i.e. cost of the mobile alongwith interest; to pay him Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.

3.             Notice was delivered upon OP No.1 on 17.03.2017. Notice sent to OP No.2 received back with the report of refusal and notice to OP No.3 was delivered on 15.03.2017. However, none appeared for the OPs and, therefore, the OPs were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.04.2017.

4.             In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; original bill Ex.C-1; job sheet dated 21.07.2016 Ex.C-2; legal notice Ex.C-3 and job sheet Ex.C-4.

5.             We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have gone through the contents of the file.

6.             The complainant has purchased the mobile from OP No.2 and few days of its purchase the mobile started giving trouble and the complainant went to OP No.3 i.e. authorised service centre. OP No.3 gave the mobile to the complainant stating that it has been repaired. The mobile set of the complainant has again started giving problem and the complainant visited OP No.3 and who after inspection issued him job sheets Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-4. The complainant got back his mobile set after assurance from OP No.3 that his mobile will work. But the mobile handset was not working despite the assurance of OP No.3. OP No.3 repaired the handset of the complainant but it was not working after many repairs and at last OP No.3 was not able to repair the mobile set.

7.             The OPs were served but despite service they chose not to appear and contest the case. The complainant has failed to prove that the mobile set purchased by him from OP No.2 was provided/manufactured by OP No.1 and OP No.2 has simply sold the mobile to the complainant. Thus no liability can be fastened upon OP No.1 and 2.  OP No. 3 did not appear despite service.  The whole purpose of pleadings is to give fair notice to each party of what the opponent’s case is and to ascertain with precision the point(s) on which the parties argue and those on which they differ. The purpose is to eradicate irrelevancy. The complaint is a concise statement of facts and if no reply is filed to the complaint, the averments made therein are deemed to have been admitted. No amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea, which was never put forward in pleadings. As such, the evidence adduced by the complainant remains unrebutted.

8.             In view of the above discussion, we hold that OP No. 3 is deficient in service because of not repairing the mobile handset of the complainant. Accordingly, complaint against OP No.3 is allowed and dismissed against OP No.1 and 2.  Hence, OP No.3 is directed to refund the price of the mobile i.e. Rs.7,600/- (Rs. Seven Thousand Six Hundred only) and pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses.

                OP No.3 is further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of compensation awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till realisation.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 14.12.2017

                                          (A.P.S.Rajput)          

                                      President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member