Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 88.

                                                          Instituted on     : 22.02.2018.

                                                          Decided on       : 15.11.2018.

Harish Chander s/o Sh. Sita Ram(Age-56 years) R/o H.No.515, Sector-2, Rothak, Mob: 9416884403.

                                                          .......................Complainant.

                             Vs.

1. Manager, Customer Relations, Micromax Informatics Ltd., Micromax House, 90-B, Sector-18, Gurugram Pincode-122005, Haryana.
2. M/s Friends Communication SCF 178, 1^ST Floor, HUDA Complex, Rohtak-124001.
3. M/s Anu Mobile World, Ashok Chowk, Delhi Road, Rohtak.

                                                          ……….Opposite parties.

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

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

                   SMT.SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER

Present:       Sh.Deepak Chahal, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Opposite parties exparte.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a mobile phone Micromax Q462 Dual Sim from the respondent No.3 vide invoice no.2754 dated 30.06.2017 for Rs.8490/- . That respondent no.1 is the manufacturer, respondent no.2 is the service center and OP No.3 is the dealer of Micromax mobile. That the phone is not functioning from the very beginning and it had problems of touch screen, display, hang problem, charging battery, over heating problem and power does not switch on etc. That complainant visited the service centre on 01.11.2017 and they updated the software but the defects could not be removed. That opposite party no.2 informed the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile in question. That the act of opposite parties of selling a defective mobile is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay an amount of Rs.8490/- towards cost of mobile, alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice issued to OP No.1 through registered post not received back either served or unserved. Hence OP no.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.04.2018 of this Forum. OP No. 2 & 3 also did not appear and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.06.2018 and dated 21.08.2018 respectively.

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.CW1 to Ex.CW4 and closed his evidence.

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

5.                          Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant had purchased the mobile on 30.06.2017 and as per job sheet Ex.CW2 dated 01.11.2017, there were problem of Restart/reboot and the mobile was within warranty period. The contention of complainant is that the mobile phone in question was so many other problems like display, hang problem, charging battery over heating etc. which could not be removed by the OPs despite his repeated requests within warranty period and the mobile in question is having manufacturing defect.  On the other hand opposite parties 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 defect in the mobile set  stands proved.  Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and OP No.1 being manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set after deduction some depreciation on it as the complainant has used the mobile phone uninterruptedly for 5 months.

6.                          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.7000/-(Rupees seven thousand only) towards cost of mobile set alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 22.02.2018 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.2500/-(Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses  to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.  However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile set in question to the OPs at the time of payment by the opposite parties.

7.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.

8.                          File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

15.11.2018.

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

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

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

                                                          Ved Pal Hooda, Member.

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

                                                                        Saroj Bala Bohra, Member