Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                                    Complaint No. : 69.

                                                                    Instituted on     : 15.02.2018.

                                                                    Decided on       : 23.04.2019.

Dolat Ram son of Sh. Chunni Lal, age 44 years, Resident of Sunarian Kalan, District Rohtak.

                                                                              ………..Complainant.

                                                Vs.

1.       Sonu Mobile Communication, Purana Bazaar, near Railway Line, Gandhi Camp, Rohtak through its Proprietor.

2.       Micromax Information Ltd., 90B, Sector-18, Gurugram, through its Manager/Authorized Person.

3.       Sai Security Systems, Micromax Care, Near Malabar Guest House, Green Road, Rohtak, through its Proprietor. 

……….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

                   DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. R.K. Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 already exparte.

                   Opposite party No. 3 given up.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that on 01.09.2017, the complainant had purchased a Mixromax mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 911448207135004 and 911448207135012 from the respondent No. 1 vide bill no.973, dated 01.09.2017 for Rs.6,000/- which was manufactured by opposite party No. 2. That one year warranty/guarantee of the said mobile was provided by the respondents. That after the purchase of said mobile, it did not work properly and there was problem of hanging during the incoming and outgoing calls. That on 27.12.2017, the complainant visited to respondent No. 3 and on inspection of said mobile, the official of the respondent No. 3 told the complainant that the same was not repairable and affixed a slip on the back side of the mobile phone and returned the same to the complainant. The complainant visited to the respondent No.1 time and again and requested to replace the said mobile phone, but all in vain. That the act of opposite parties of selling a defective mobile is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the said mobile phone with new one or to refund the amount of Rs.6,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum to the complainant and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice issued to opposite party No. 1 received back with the report of refusal and notice issued to opposite party No. 2 through registered post not received back either served or unserved. Hence, opposite parties No. 1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.03.2018 passed by this Forum.

3.                          Whereas, opposite party No. 3 was given up by the complainant being unnecessary vide his separately recorded statement on dated 07.08.2018.

4.                          Learned counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and has closed his evidence on dated 05.03.2019.

 5.                         We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the mobile in question purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties was defective from the very beginning and the same could not be repaired or replaced by the opposite parties during the warranty period. On the other hand, opposite parties No.1 & 2 did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding not repairing the mobile set stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and OP No.2 being manufacturer is liable to replace the mobile in question.

7.                          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.2 to replace the mobile in question of the complainant with a new one worth Rs.8000/-(Rs.6000/- as cost of old mobile plus Rs.2000/-on account of litigation expenses) within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite parties at the time of replacement.

8.                          Copy of this of and the order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

23.04.2019.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Ved Pal Hooda, Member.

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                                        Renu Chaudhary, Member.