DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.83 of 20-03-2018

Decided on 31-07-2018

Jagjeet Singh aged about 28 years S/o Mewa Singh R/o Village Pakka Kalan, Distt Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Micromax Information Ltd. 9/52/1, Kirti Nagar, Industrial Area, New Delhi- 110015, through its Managing Director.

2.Mittal Enterprises, Add. Near Krishna Continental Hotel, Fauji Chowk, Bathinda, through its Prop./Partner. (Service Centre)

3.Karan Telecom, Gole Bazaar, Mandi Dabwali, through its Prop./Partner.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur Member

Present:-

For the complainant: Sh.Satwir Singh, Advocate.

Opposite parties: Ex-parte.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Jagjeet Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Micromax Information Ltd. and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Micromax mobile handset for Rs.7000/- vide bill dated 2.5.2017 from opposite party No.3 with one year warranty on behalf of opposite party No.1.

3. It is alleged that the mobile handset started giving some problem as it could not be working properly since the date of its purchase. It started creating problem at the time of start of the function. Ultimately, it became dead. The complainant made complaint to opposite party No.3 with regard to this problem, it asked him to get the mobile handset checked from the service centre i.e. opposite party No.2. Accordingly, on 13.2.2018, he took the mobile handset to opposite party No.2 with the complaint and for replacing it with new one or to solve the problem as it was within warranty period. Opposite party No.2 received the mobile handset against receipt No.1046 dated 13.2.2018 and asked the complainant to come after some time.

4. It is further alleged that the mobile handset is in the custody of opposite party No.2. The complainant approached opposite party No.2, but it refused to replace the mobile handset with new one and solve the problem on the pretext that it is not within warranty. Opposite party No.2 demanded Rs.1000/- for repair of the mobile handset.

   On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has claimed replacement of the mobile handset with new one or refund of its price i.e. Rs.7000/- in addition to compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

5. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them.

6. Complainant was asked to produce evidence.

7. In ex-parte evidence, the complainant has tendered into evidence bill, (Ex.C1); photocopy of job sheet, (Ex.C2); his affidavit dated 9.2.2018, (Ex.C3); photocopy of legal notice, (Ex.C4); postal receipts, (Ex.C5 to Ex.C7) and closed the evidence.

8. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the file carefully.

9. Learned counsel for complainant has submitted that bill, (Ex.C1) proves that the complainant has purchased one mobile handset for Rs.7000/- from opposite party No.3. It is also submitted by learned counsel for complainant that although, originally, bill was issued in the name of one Naveeen but subsequently, this mobile handset was sold to the complainant. As such, the complainant is 'consumer' of opposite parties.

10. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that receipt, (Ex.C2) proves that the mobile handset was received by opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 demanded an amount of Rs.1000/- for repair. The mobile handset was within the warranty period. As such, OP was under obligation to repair the mobile handset without any charges. Opposite parties have not come forward to contest the claim of the complainant. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant. The deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties stands proved. Therefore, the complaint be accepted.

11. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

12. The complainant has asserted that he has purchased one mobile handset vide bill, (Ex.C1). A perusal of this bill reveals that it is originally in the name of one Naveen. The mobile handset was purchased from Dabwali. The name of the complainant is with different writing and ink. There is also overwriting regarding the mobile number. This fact creates doubt to the fact that whether the complainant has purchased the mobile handset or not. The complainant has also pleaded that the mobile handset was handed over to opposite party No.2 being service centre. The date on this receipt also contained some overwriting. The address of the complainant on this receipt is of village Dabwali, but in the complaint, he has claimed resident of Village Pakka Kalan, District Bathinda.

    It is also pleaded that opposite party No.2 is the authorized service centre of opposite party No.1, but there is nothing on record to prove that opposite party No.2 is authorized service centre of opposite party No.1. All these facts make the case of the complainant doubtful. The mobile handset was purchased at Dabwali. The address of manufacturer party is at New Delhi. Opposite party No.2 has been impleaded only to create territorial jurisdiction of the Forum at Bathinda.

13. For the reasons recorded above, the conclusion is that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. As such, he is not entitled to any relief. The complaint is considered without merits and stands dismissed.

    It is made clear that opposite party No.2 is under obligation to return the mobile handset, if the complainant is not willing to get it repaired on payment. The complainant will also at liberty to get his mobile handset back from opposite party No.2, if not interested to get it repaired against payment.

14. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

15. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    31-07-2018

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member