DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.347 of 17-05-2016

Decided on 06-09-2016

Mandeep Singh aged about 32 years S/o Hamir Singh R/o St.No.1/9, Baba Farid Nagar, Near Bibi Wala Chowk, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.M/s Micromax Infrometech Ltd., Plot No.18, Sector 2 NE, Partapnagar, Rudrapur US Nagar (Uttrakhand)-263153, through its Managing Director (Manufacturer).

2.M/s Micromax Infrometech Ltd., 21/14A, Phase II, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi-110020, through its Managing Director (Man/Marketing).

3.M/s ICE Tree collection, H.No.34, Pocket 10, Sector 21, Rohini, New Delhi, through its Managing Director/Manager. (Deleted)

4.M/s Unitech, Bangi House, Mehna Marg, Bathinda, now First Floor over Vishavkarama Motor Works, Hazura Singh and Sons, GT Road, BPC Petrol Pump Near Bathinda-151001, through its Proprietor. (Deleted)

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

Complainant: Sh.Mandeep Singh in person.

Opposite party Nos.1 and 2: Ex-parte.

Opposite party Nos.3 and 4: Deleted.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Mandeep Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties M/s Micromax Infrometech Ltd. and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Micromax mobile handset model A-311 for Rs.9290/- vide invoice dated 1.6.2015 from opposite party No.3, the authorized dealer of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 with one year guarantee.

3. It is alleged that soon after purchase i.e. during the warranty period, the mobile handset started giving troubles regarding 'hang' and 're-start'. The mobile handset was taken to the service centre in the month of December 2015 and after few days, it was returned. The mobile handset again started giving troubles and same was deposited with opposite party No.4 (authorized service centre) on 28.4.2015, but still the problem exists in it. The mobile handset was beyond repair and it suffered inherent manufacturing defect. Opposite party No.4 having declared so and opposite party Nos.1 and 2 refused to replace the mobile handset in question with new one.

   On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and has prayed for directions to them to refund the price of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.9290/- and also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7000/-. Hence, this complaint.

4. In view of statement suffered by the complainant on 18.5.2016, names of opposite party Nos.3 and 4 were deleted from the array of opposite parties.

5. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 and 2. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them.

6. Complainant was afforded opportunities to produce evidence.

7. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit dated 17.5.2016, (Ex.C1); photocopy of bill, (Ex.C2) and photocopy of job sheet, (Ex.C3) and closed the evidence.

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

9. Complainant has reiterated his averments as taken in the complaint and detailed above.

10. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

11. The complainant has alleged that he has purchased one Micromax A-311 mobile handset for Rs.9290/- from opposite party No.3, retail invoice, (Ex.C2) proves this fact. The complainant has also tendered one job sheet dated 27.4.2016, (Ex.C3) in which he has reported the problems, which shows that there were some problems in the mobile handset in question. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have not come forward to contest the complaint of the complainant. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant that there are some defects in his mobile handset. The complainant has not produced on record any documentary evidence or expert report to prove that there is some manufacturing defect in the mobile handset.

12. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.1000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party Nos.1 and 2. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to repair the mobile handset in question as per terms and conditions of warranty.

13. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

14. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    06-09-2016

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member