Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/18

Davinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax Informatics Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Kuldeep Singh Mittal

20 Sep 2016

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        18         

Date of Institution :   12.01.2016

Date of Decision :     20.09.2016

 

Davinder Kumar s/o Sh Janak Raj r/o Mansa at present residing at Dod Mohalla, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu and District Faridkot.                                                                    

.....Complainant

Versus

1. Micromax Informatics Ltd. Micromax House, 90B, Sector–18, Gurgaon-122015.

2. Monga Telecom, Near Khalsa School, Cinema Road, Mansa.

3. Micro Max Care Centre, Ist Floor, Khalsa Dewan Gurudwara, Hukki Wala Chowk, Faridkot.

4. Unitech, Opposite Dr Jagmal Neuro, G T Road, Bathinda

..............OPs

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh Purshotam Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh K S Mittal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Pritpal Singh, Ld Counsel for OP-2,

              OP-1, 3 & 4 Exparte.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to replace the defective mobile with new one or to refund the cost price of same and for further directing OPs to pay Rs 75,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith Rs 11,000/- as litigation expenses.

   2                                             Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one micromax handset under the name Canvas Fire-2 A-104 on 31.01.2015 for Rs.5,600/-from OP-2 against proper bill, but since the day of its purchase the said handset did not work properly and on 20.02.2015 i.e just after twenty days of its purchase, complainant deposited the said set with OP-1 the Service Centre of OPs, and OP-1 returned the same to complainant on 31.03.2015. IMEI No. of handset was also changed, but again it did not work satisfactorily and then, complainant again submitted the said handset to OP-1 on 1.06.2015 with many complaints, but despite repair  it did not work. Thereafter, on 4.08.2015 complainant again deposited the said handset with OP-1, but  OP-1 refused to repair the same saying that it could not be repaired. As the said handset is having some manufacturing defect, therefore it is not working properly since the day of its purchase. Complainant made many requests to OPs to repair the same or to refund the cost price of said handset, but they refused to do so. Complainant also served legal notice dt 2.09.2015 to OPs and in response to notice issued by complainant, OPs made call to complainant and directed him to deposit the defective handset with their Service Centre at Bathinda and also assured that new handset would be provided to him within 15 days and on assurance of OPs, on 1.10.2015, complainant again deposited the defective handset with Service Centre of OPs i.e Op-1, but  thereafter, they neither repaired the handset nor returned the same. Complainant approached OP-1 many times with request to return his handset but all in vain. This act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to complainant. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to provide new handset of same model to him or to refund the cost price of handset and to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs 11,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                               Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 9.02.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                           Registered cover containing notice and copy of complaint alongwith relevant documents was sent to OP-1, 3 and 4, but nobody appeared in theForum either in person or through counsel to defend the allegations levelled against them. Acknowledgment might have been lost in transit. As nobody appeared on behalf of OP-1, 3 and 4 on dates fixed therefore, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 4.04.2016, 18.03.2016 and 20.07.2016 respectively.                   

5                                                   On receipt of the notice, the OP-2 filed written reply taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as matter in question does not come under the jurisdiction of this Forum. It is averred that complainant has filed the present complaint on false and fictitious facts as complainant never approached answering OP with any complaint in his handset. Complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and he estopped from his own act and conduct to file the present complaint. However, on merits, he has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2. It is reiterated that complainant nether approached answering OP regarding any complaint in his handset nor he has ever denied any service to him. He has asserted that complainant has filed this complaint only to harass the answering OP and to obtain undue advantage from them. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering opposite parties. 

6                                             Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-14 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                               In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sohan Singh, Proprietor as Ex OP-2/1 and then, evidence of OP-2 was closed by the order of this Forum as OPs did not tender evidence even after availing many opportunities.

8                                                                 We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

9                                      Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant purchased one micromax handset on 31.01.2015 for Rs.5,600/-from OP-2 against proper bill, but since the date of its purchase the said handset did not work properly and just after twenty days of its purchase, complainant deposited the same with OP-1, who is the Service Centre of OPs, and OP-1 returned the same to complainant on 31.03.2015. IMEI No. Of handset was also changed, but again it did not work satisfactorily and then, complainant again submitted the said handset to OP-1 on 1.06.2015 with many complaints, but despite repair  it did not work. Thereafter, on 4.08.2015 complainant again deposited the said handset with OP-1, but  OP-1 refused to repair the same saying that it could not be repaired. As the said handset is having some manufacturing defect, therefore it is not working properly since the day of its purchase. Complainant made many requests to OPs to repair the same or to refund the cost price of said handset, but they refused to do so. Thereafter, complainant served legal notice dt 2.09.2015 to OPs and in response to notice issued by complainant, OPs made call asking him to deposit the defective handset with their Service Centre at Bathinda and also assured for its replacement within 15 days and on assurance of OPs, on 1.10.2015, complainant again deposited the defective handset with Service Centre of OPs i.e Op-1, but  thereafter, they neither repaired the handset nor returned the same. Complainant approached OP-1 many times with request to return his handset but all in vain. This act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to complainant. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint.

10                                                 To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-2 argued that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint as matter in question does not come under the jurisdiction of this Forum. It is averred that complainant has filed the present complaint on false and fictitious grounds as complainant never approached answering OP with any complaint in his handset. Complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and he is estopped from his own act and conduct to file the present complaint. He has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2. It is reiterated that complainant neither approached answering OP regarding any complaint in his handset nor he has ever denied any service to him. He has asserted that complainant has filed this complaint only to harass the answering OP and to obtain undue advantage from them. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer to dismiss the complaint against OP-2. 

11                                                   From the careful perusal of record placed on file and arguments advanced by parties, it is observed OPs gave defective handset to complainant and despite his repeated visits and requests, did not repair the same. Documents Ex C-12, which is a copy of job sheet dated 1.06.2015 and Ex C-15 which is also a copy of job sheet clearly reveal that handset provided by Ops was a defective one and despite service of legal notice Ex C-2 and Ex C-5, OPs have not repaired the same. Complainant has adduced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove that OPs are deficient in service and they have caused harassment and mental agony to him. All this amounts to unfair trade practice. However, from the reply filed by OP-2 it seems that Op-2 has no role in causing any grievance to complainant as complainant has also not filed any document showing that he ever approached OP-2 for redressal of his grievance.  He is only reseller of Mobile Phone which is manufactured by OP-1 and the warranty given on the Phone is only by the manufacturer.

12                                  In the light of above discussion, this Forum is of considered opinion that OP-1, 3 and 4 have been deficient in providing services to complainant and there is trade mal practice on their part. We are fully convinced with the arguments advanced by complainant and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-1, 3 and 4 and it is dismissed against OP-2. OP-1, 3 and 4 are directed to give new handset of same model to complainant within month and in case of failure to do so, refund the cost price of said handset alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from the date of its purchase till realization. They are further directed to pay Rs.3000/-as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant and Rs.2000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of its receipt, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 20.09.2016

Member                              President                                          (P Singla)                               (Ajit Aggarwal)