THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 571-14
Date of Institution : 5.11.2014
Date of Decision : 08.04.2015
Sh. Krishan Singh son of Sh. Darshan Singh, aged about 40 years, resident of VPO Jethuwal, Tehsil and District Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
Micromax Informatics Limited, having its Head office at Micromax House, 90-B, Sector 18, Gurgaon 122015 through its legal representative/Authorized person
M/s. Mobile spot, having its business at Shop No. 9, First Floor, Nehru Shopping Complex, Lawrence Road, Amritsar through its Legal Representative/Authorized Person
M/s. Perfect Mobile Repair Center having its business at Shop No. 19-20, Simran Plaza Market, 210-A, Queens Road, Amritsar through its legal Representative/Authorized Person
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainants : Sh.R.S. Bhullar,Adv.
For the opposite party No.1 : Sh.Ajay Shanker,Adv.
For the opposite party No.2 : Sh. Munish Kohli,Adv.
For opposite party No.3 : Ex-parte
-2-
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Krishan Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he had purchased a Tablet Micromax from opposite party No.2 vide bill No. 112 worth Rs,. 7900/- for his personal use. According to the complainant during the warranty period of one year the said tablet had some manufacturing defect. On 1.8.2014 the tablet stopped working . The complainant informed opposite party No.2, who advised the complainant to approach the service centre of opposite party No.1 i.e. opposite party No.3. The complainant contacted opposite party No.3 , who after checking the tablet told the complainant that the said tablet is having some defect in its display touch screen and retained the said tablet for its repair and told the complainant that they will inform the complainant on phone when it will be repaired. Complainant has alleged that after waiting more than 10 days, complainant approached opposite party No.3 on 11.8.2014 to enquire about his tablet and on this they told the complainant that they had sent a request to opposite party No.1 for providing them a new display touch screen as the present one is irreparable. The complainant was again asked to wait for another 8-10 days. On 20.8.2014 complainant again visited the opposite party No.3 to enquire about his tablet but he was informed that at present the display touch screen is not available, so he has to wait till its availability with opposite party No.1 . Complainant asked the opposite party No.3 to replace his tablet with new one of same model as the same is under warranty, but opposite party No.3 flatly refused to replace the same . The complainant also contacted opposite party No.2 for its replacement but to no avail. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to replace the defective tablet with new one of same model or to refund the bill amount of Rs. 7900/-. Compensation of Rs. 20000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant purchased the tablet from opposite party No.2 being the authorized dealer of the company. It was denied that there is manufacturing defect in the said tablet. It was submitted that opposite party No.2 had sold good quality product in a proper working condition to the complainant. It was further submitted that if there is any defect in the tablet, the complainant is to approach the authorized service centre and opposite party No.2 is not responsible for the same. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite party No.3 did not appear despite service as such it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.12.2014.
4. Opposite party No.1 through his Adv.Sh. Ajay Shanker made statement that they do not want to file any written version or lead any evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1.
5. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill Ex.C-2, copy of job card Ex.C-3.
6. Opposite party No.2 tendered affidavit of Sh.Sunil Kumar, partner of opposite party No.2 Ex.OP2/1.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the complainant and opposite party No.2 arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the complainant and opposite party No.2 with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the complainant and opposite party No.2.
8. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the complainant and opposite party No.2, it is clear that complainant purchased Micromax Tablet from opposite party No.2 vide bill dated 1.2.2014 Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 7900/-. The complainant alleges that the said tablet stopped working on 1.8.2014 and he approached opposite party No.3, authorized service centre and they kept the Tablet and issued job sheet Ex.C-3. Opposite party No.3 assured the complainant that they would repair the Tablet within 10 days. The complainant personally visited opposite party No.3 on 11.8.2014 i.e. after 10 days, but the opposite party No.3 could not repair the said tablet . Since then the said tablet is lying with opposite party No.3. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
9. Whereas the case of opposite party No.2 is that he is the authorized dealer of the company and he has sold good quality product to the complainant. Regarding its repair and warranty, opposite party No.1 i.e. manufacturer is responsible. As such there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2 qua the complainant.
10. Whereas ld.counsel for opposite party No.1 got recorded his statement on 6.1.2015 that opposite party No.1 is ready to replace the Tablet in question with new one of same model or upgrade model subject to return of original job sheet, original bill and the accessories in possession of the complainant to the service centre i.e. opposite party No.3.
11. So from the entire above discussion, it stands fully proved on record that the Micromax Tablet purchased by the complainant vide bill Ex.C-2 became defective within warranty period and opposite party No.3, authorized service centre failed to repair the same. Rather opposite party No.1 i.e. manufacturer of the said Micromax Tablet has admitted that the said tablet is not repairable and they agreed to replace the same with new one of same model or upgrade model subject to return of original job sheet, original bill and the accessories in possession of the complainant to the service centre i.e. opposite party No.3.
12. Resultantly this complaint is disposed of with the directions to opposite party No.1 to replace the tablet of the complainant with new one of same make and model or with upgrade model on payment of difference of cost, if the complainant so agrees or to refund the amount of the tablet to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 1000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
13. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
08.04.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
