Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 362.
Instituted on : 13.08.2015.
Decided on : 13.06.2016.
Mahinder Sharma R/o H.No.116-L, Model Town, Rohtak(Haryana).
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Micromax informatics Ltd. 21/14-A, Phase-II, Nariana Industrial Area Delhi-110028 Through its Managing Director.
- M/s Shree Hari Computer Solution, Authorized Service Center, Micromax 866/22, Delhi Road, Near Bajrang Bhawan Mandir, Rohtak now SCO-189 HUDA Complex, Rohtak through its proprietor/owner/franchise head.
- Anu Mobile World Ashoka Chowk, Delhi Road, Rohtak-124001 through its Proprietor.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.V.P.Goyal, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a Mobile phone model Micromax X-328 from opposite party No.3 vide bill no.144 dated 13.08.2014 for a sum of Rs.1750/-. It is averred that on the next day complainant found defect in the handset as it was ‘dead on purchase’. The complainant visited the opposite party no.3 to replace the phone, but he die not replace. It is averred that the complainant contacted the opposite party no.2 i.e. authorized service centre on 28.10.2014 but the same was returned to the complainant after 2 months and was told that there will be no problem now but after using the handset, the complainant found the same problem and he visited the service centre again and again but no response was given. Complainant served a legal notice on dated 22.07.2015 upon the opposite parties to replace the mobile set or to refund the price but to no effect. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed either to replace the mobile set with a new one or to refund the price of mobile set alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite parties. But opposite party no.2 vide order dated 24.09.2015, opposite party no.1 vide order dated 07.12.2015 and opposite party no.3 vide order dated 19.05.2016 of this Forum were proceeded against exparte.
3. Complainant led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.CW2 to Ex.CW13 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that as per invoice Ex.C2 the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 13.08.2014 for a sum of Rs.1750/- of Micromax Company from opposite party no.3. It is also not disputed that as per Service job sheet Ex.CW3 dated 28.10.2014, Ex.CW4 dated 28.07.2015, there were same problems like “4201 Cellular Access(GSM) No calls IN 4401 Audio no outgoing audio”. Complainant also sent emails Ex.CW5, Ex.CW6 and legal notice Ex.CW10 to the opposite parties to redress his grievance but the same were not replied.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the mobile in question was purchased by the complainant on 13.08.2014 and the defect in the mobile set appeared within a short period i.e. during the warranty period and the same could not be repaired/replaced by the opposite parties during the warranty period. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in 2014(1)CLT588 titled Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. & Others Hon’ble Delhi State Commission has held that: “In the event when a product is found to be defective at the very beginning it is always better to order for the refund of the amount because replacement of the product will never satisfied the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product-if the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and if develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous”. It is also on record that opposite parties did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding defect in the mobile set stands proved. In view of the aforesaid law which is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that it is a fit case where the refund of price is justified.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set. As such it is directed opposite party No.1 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set i.e Rs.1750/-(Rupees one thousand seven hundred fifty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 13.08.2015 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. The set in question is already with the opposite party no.2 i.e. service centre. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. 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:
13.06.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
