DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.353 of 05-12-2017

Decided on 05-03-2018

Jatinder Kumar S/o Raghunath Singh of Unt 761 Independent TPT P1. ASC, Bathinda Cantt. C/o 56 APO.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Micromax Informatics Limited, Micromax House, 90B, Sector 18, Gurgaon Pin-122015, through its Incharge/M.D.

2.Arora Music Time and Mobile Centre, 17 PRTC Market Court Road, Bathinda, through its Incharge/Prop./Partner.

3.M/S Mittal Enterprises In front of Lord Rama School Near Fauzi Chowk, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, through its Prop./Manager/M.D./Partner/Incharge.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

Complainant: Sh.Jatinder Kumar in person.

Opposite parties: Ex-parte.

ORDER

Jarnail Singh, Member

1. The complainant Jatinder Kumar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Micromax Informatics Limited and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased one mobile handset make Micromax E 471 for Rs.10,000/- vide invoice No.562 from opposite party No.2 on 16.12.2016. At that time, opposite parties provided sufficient warranty to the complainant.

3. It is alleged that after one week from the date of purchase, the mobile handset stopped working as there were defects in it relating to mick, battery dead immediately, display touch screen not working, heating problem and network problem. The complainant made complaint with opposite party No.2, it sent him to opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.3 checked the mobile handset and kept the same in its custody and directed the complainant to come after a few days. After curing the mobile handset, opposite party No.3 handed over the mobile handset to the complainant, but after one week, it again started giving same problems. He again approached the shop of opposite party No.3, it checked the mobile handset and kept the same in its custody and directed him to come after a few days. Again after curing the mobile handset, opposite party No.3 handed over the mobile handset to the complainant and in the month of April 2017, the same problem reoccurred. He again approached the shop of opposite party No.3, it issued him job sheet dated 25.4.2017 and asked him to come after sometimes. Opposite party No.3 after curing the mobile handset, handed over the same to the complainant in the month of June 2017, but after sometimes, the mobile handset was again disorder. The complainant again approached the shop of opposite party No.3.

4. It is further alleged that in the month of October 2017, the mobile handset was again disorder and totally dead. The complainant again rushed to opposite party No.3. After checking the mobile handset, opposite party No.3 asked the complainant to come after some days as there is manufacturing defect and it will send the same to opposite party No.1. He again approached the shop of opposite party No.3, it asked him that the defect is not cured and to come after some time. Approximately, more than 1.5 days was elapsed, but the problem in the mobile handset was not cured. The mobile handset is still in the custody of opposite parties.

5. It is further alleged that about one week ago, the complainant again approached the shop of opposite party No.3, its official told him that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile handset, which is not curable. He requested opposite party Nos.2 and 3 to replace the mobile handset with new one or refund of its price as it is within warranty, but to no effect. Due to this act of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered great mental tension, agony botheration harassment and financial loss.

   On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. He has claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as price of the mobile handset. Hence, this complaint.

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

7. Complainant was asked to produce evidence.

8. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 5.2.2018, (Ex.C1); photocopy of retail invoice, (Ex.C2); photocopies of job sheets, (Ex.C3 and Ex.C4) and closed the evidence.

9. We have heard complainant and gone through the file carefully.

10. The complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above.

11. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

12. The complainant purchased one mobile handset for Rs.10,000/- from opposite party No.2 on 16.12.2016. Ex.C2, proves this fact. He has pleaded in his complaint that after one week from the date of purchase, the mobile handset stopped working, but he has not brought on record any job sheet to prove this fact. He has placed on record copies of two job sheets dated 25.4.2017 and 13.10.2017, (Ex.C3 and Ex.C4), which show that he has reported some problems in the mobile handset. As per complainant, the defects in his mobile handset have not been removed. Opposite parties have not come to this Forum to contest the claim of the complainant. Therefore, the evidence of the complainant is un-rebutted and unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant.

13. Now, question is regarding relief for which the complainant is entitled to. The complainant has prayed for replacement of the mobile handset with new one or refund of its price by alleging manufacturing defect in it. He has used the mobile handset for more than 4 months without any difficulty. There is no evidence to prove any manufacturing defect. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to replacement of the mobile handset with new one or refund of its price.

14. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.3000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party Nos.1 and 3 and dismissed qua opposite party No.2. Opposite party Nos.1 and 3 are directed to handover the mobile handset to the complainant after duly repair as per terms and conditions.

    It is further made clear that original warranty/guarantee shall stand extended for the remaining period from the date of delivery of mobile handset to the complainant, i.e after excluding period from 13.10.2017 till date of delivery.

15. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

16. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. As there is shortage of postal stamps, parties can also collect the copy of order personally against receipt. File be consigned to the record room.

    Announced:-

    05-03-2018

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member