Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 545.
Instituted on : 18.09.2017.
Decided on : 22.03.2018.
Kanika Goel w/o Dr. Manish Bansal R/o House No.907 Sector-1, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Manager customer relations, Micromax informatics Ltd., Micromax House 90-B, Sector-18 Gurgaon Pincode-122005, Haryana.
- M/s Sai Security Systems near Malabar guest house green Road, Rohtak Pin code 124001, Haryana.
- M/s Sai communication, Ashoka chowk, Delhi Road, Rohtak-124001.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Hawa Singh Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
RAJBIR SINGH DAHIYA, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a mobile set make Micromax Q4310(Black) dual sim from respondent No.3 vide invoice No.269 dated 08.06.2017 for Rs.12000/-. That the mobile phone is not working properly from the very beginning and there are problems of touch screen, display, charging battery over heating problem and power does not switch on problems etc. That complainant contacted the opposite party No.2 and deposited the phone for repair but after repair also phone was not working properly. The officials of opposite party No.2 told the complainant that the defect cannot be repaired as it is a manufacturing defect. That complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the mobile set but to no effect. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs.12000/- i.e. value of mobile phone and also to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- for mental agony, harassment alongwith interest and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to O.P.No.2 & 3 received back duly served and notice sent to OP No.1 through registered post not received back and none appeared on behalf of OP No.1 to 3 and as such opposite party No.1 to 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.10.2017 of this Forum..
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.CW1 to Ex.CW3 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. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the mobile in question has become defective within warranty period. Since the complainant is not satisfied with the repair of the mobile done by service centre though he has approached the OPs many a times for the same. Also none of the opposite parties have come up for the rebuttal against the pleadings of the complainant placed on the file in the present case and are proceeded against exparte in this case. Hence the complaint is allowed with refund of price of mobile set after deduction of 10% depreciation.
6. Accordingly it is directed that opposite party No.1 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set after deduction of 10% depreciation i.e. to pay Rs.10800/-(Rupees ten thousand eight hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 18.09.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses and compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
22.03.2018.
................................................
Rajbir Singh Dahiya, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
