DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.156 of 2016
Date of institution: 11.03.2016 Date of decision : 16.10 .2017
Kul Bhushan son of late Kishori Lal, resident of House No.1469-A, Sector 39-B, Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Micromax Informatics Ltd. through its Customer Care Officer/Authorised Signatory, 9-B, Sector 18, Gurgaon, Haryana 122015.
2. M/s. Luxmi Communication through its Proprietor/Authorised signatory, SCF No.78, 1st Floor, Phase-2, Mohali.
3. Gadget Gal through its Proprietor/Authorised Signatory, Khasra No.29//21-22-23, 30//24-25, H.B. No.91, Village Kaidan, Post Office Bhatian, Tehsil and District Ludhiana 141007.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: Shri Somesh Gupta for the complainant.
None for the OP No.1 and 2.
Service of OP No.3 dispensed with.
ORDER
By Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Complainant Kul Bhushan has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. On 21.08.2015 the complainant online booked mobile phone make Micromax Model Juice 2 AQ5001 with OP No.3 through Snapdeal website vide order No.8034096097 and price of the mobile phone was Rs.6,772/- and the copy of the bill was for Rs.7,564/-. The payment was to be made on delivery. The mobile was delivered at the residence of the complainant on 28.08.2015 and within 15 days of its purchase, the complainant observed that there is fault of overheating of battery during charging in the mobile and also the mobile used to go automatically off while making or receiving call. The complainant approached OP No.1 and the complainant was advised to approach its authorised service centre i.e. M/s. Future Communication, SCO 28, 1st Floor, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh as the set being in warranty period. Accordingly, the complainant approached M/s. Future Communication, Chandigarh for repair of the mobile who sought 30 to 40 days for repair of the mobile and issued job sheet dated 12.09.2015 to the complainant. The complainant was given a contact No.7355926061 to know the status, however, it remained always busy. After lapse of 40 days the complainant visited M/s. Future Communication, Chandigarh and he was informed that handset is under process of repair. The complainant keep on visiting the service centre for every 7-10 days. On 28.11.2015 the complainant was informed by M/s. Future Communication, Chandigarh that the mobile set has not yet been repaired and this service centre is getting closed and the complainant was asked to collect the mobile from OP No.2 as it has been now the authorised service centre. The complainant was also informed that his mobile handset has been sent there and it was done without knowledge and consent of the complainant. The complainant visited OP No.2 on 05.12.2015 and the mobile handset was handed over to him after repairs. The complainant checked the mobile set in the service centre itself on 05.12.2015 and found that it is still not in working condition and he again handed over the mobile to OP No.2 and receipt of mobile phone by OP No.2 has been mentioned on the job sheet of 12.09.2015. The OP No.2 also demanded charges for repairs from the complainant to which the complainant refused as he has not even used the mobile set for more than 10 days. The complainant further stated that as the mobile has manufacturing defect so it should be replaced with a new one. OP No.2 informed the complainant that this is not the policy of the company. The complainant while in the service centre, contacted Customer Care Centre of OP No.1 and told about the harassment he is facing and further charges demanded by the service centre i.e. OP No.2. After discussion, representative of OP No.2 asked the complainant to come after 2 days to get information about the status of mobile phone. The complainant sent e-mails to OP No.1 on 05.12.2015 by informing about the sale of sub standard product and further providing sub standard service. OP No.1 vide e-mail dated 07.12.2015 simply apologized for the same. The complainant again visited OP No.2 on 09.12.2015 and he was told that mobile set has battery defect and it will take 10 days for repair. Fresh job sheet dated 09.12.2015 was issued to the complainant. On 28.12.2015 OP No.2 made a phone call to the complainant that his set has developed major snag and it cannot be repaired in its service centre and has to be sent to company’s workshop which will take about one month for repair. Thereafter, there is no response from the OPs. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to refund Rs.6,772/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum and compensation of Rs.20,000/- for physical and mental harassment and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Shri Amandeep Singh and Shri Amit Kohar had filed power of attorney and memo of appearance and sought time to file reply on behalf of OP No.1 and 2 respectively on 05.12.2016. Thereafter Shri Shivam, Proprietor of OP No.2 himself appeared and both OP No.1 and 2 sought time to file reply but the same was not within the stipulated period of 45 days as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 04.12.2015 in case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., accordingly the right of the OP No.1 and 2 to file reply was struck off vide order dated 18.01.2017.
4. Service of OP No.3 was dispensed with as per the statement made by counsel for the complainant on 11.05.2016.
5. In order to prove the case, the counsel tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant as Ex. CW-1/1; copies of bill Ex.C-1; booking receipt Ex.C-2; warranty card Ex.C-3; receipt Ex.C-4; e-mail and notice Ex.C-5 and receipt Ex.C-6.
6. The OP No.1 and 2 failed to lead their evidence despite repeated adjournments. Hence, the evidence of OP No.1 and 2 was closed by order on 17.07.2017.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as none appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and 2 and have gone through the contents of the file.
8. The complainant has started facing problem in the handset after some days of purchase of the mobile handset. The complainant approached OP No.1 for his mobile problem but he was advised to contact its authorised service centre which was at Chandigarh at that time. Accordingly, the complainant visited their Chandigarh Service Centre for mobile repairs and they kept it with them and issued job sheet. The mobile of the complainant was not repaired and moreover, the service centre of OP No.1 at Chandigarh was closed down and OP No.2 was made its authorised service centre and the complainant’s mobile was also sent there without his consent and knowledge. This act of the OP No.1 and 2 caused grievance to the complainant. When complainant visited OP No.2 then his phone was repaired but after due checking of the phone, the complainant found that the phone was not working. OP No.2 has not repaired the mobile of the complainant inspite of keeping it with them for some days and OP No.1 has also not resolved the issue of the mobile of the complainant. The OP No.1 and 2 are deficient in service by not resolving the issue of the mobile of the complainant. The OP No.1 and 2 were duly served and they appeared but chosen not to file reply within the time prescribed and their right to file reply was struck off but they were given a chance to rebut the evidence of the complainant. However, they also failed to lead their evidence and it was closed by order. OP No.1 and 2 are very well aware of the version of the complainant as they appeared and despite appearance, not filing reply and also by not leading their evidence proves that they have nothing to say to the averments of the complainant and accordingly OP No.1 and 2 admit the version of the complainant. The complainant has proved his case by leading his evidence and the act and conduct of OP No.1 and 2 also proves his case that OP No.1 and 2 are deficient in providing services to the complainant.
9. As per the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that OP No.1 and 2 are deficient in service and they are directed to refund amount of Rs.6,772/- (Rs. Six Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Two only) and to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.12,000/- (Rs. Twelve thousand only) for mental, physical harassment and litigation costs. The complaint is allowed accordingly.
OP No.1 and 2 are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the aforesaid awarded compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till its actual realisation.
The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 16.10.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput) President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
