DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.275 of 18-04-2016

Decided on 16-12-2016

Nitesh Goyal aged about 30 years S/o Jagdish Goyal S/o Megh Raj R/o H.No.16883-D, Nai Basti Backside Nirankari Bhawan, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Micromax Informatics Limited, 21/14A, Phase-II, Naraina, Industrial Area, Delhi-110028, through its Managing Director.

2.Shiv Bhole Telecom, Street No.6 Opposite Imperial Motors, Nai Basti, Bathinda, through its Partner/Proprietor.

3.Mittal Enterprises, In front of Lord Rama School Near Fauji Chowk, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda, through its Manager/Owner.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the complainant: Sh.Sanjay Goyal, Advocate.

For opposite party No.1: Sh.Amit Ghai, Advocate.

Opposite party Nos.2 & 3: Ex-parte.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Nitesh Goyal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Micromax Informatics Limited and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that opposite party No.1 is a manufacturer of the mobile handsets and sells its products all over India through its dealers. Opposite party No.2 is the authorized dealer of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.3 is the service centre of opposite party No.1. The complainant purchased one mobile handset Micromax AD4500 for Rs.4500/- vide invoice No.7343 dated 13.5.2015 from opposite party No.2 with one year guarantee.

3. It is alleged that the mobile handset purchased by the complainant was not working properly and was giving the problems. Since the day of purchase, the mobile handset used to 'hang' at anytime and stopped working smoothly and its keypad, display and touch screen were not working properly. The complainant brought the matter to the notice of opposite parties, but they put off the matter on one or other excuse. The mobile handset was handed over to opposite party No.3 many times for removing the defects, but opposite party No.3 after keeping the mobile handset in question for many days, used to return the same without removing defects. On 4.3.2016, the mobile handset completely 'hang' and stopped working. The complainant again contacted opposite party No.3 and reported the matter, it after checking the mobile handset, disclosed that there is some manufacturing defect, which cannot be repaired. He left his mobile handset with opposite party No.3 as the same was to be sent to the company i.e. opposite party No.1. As such, opposite party No.3 retained the mobile handset vide job sheet dated 4.3.2016. Thereafter the complainant many times visited opposite party No.3 to collect his mobile handset, but opposite party No.3 used to postpone the matter on one or other pretext and mobile handset is not returned or replaced with new one.

   On this backdrops of fact, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation for botheration, harassment etc. and prayed for directions to opposite parties either to replace the mobile handset with new one or to refund its price amount with interest. Hence, this complaint.

4. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them.

5. Complainant was asked to produce evidence.

6. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit dated 16.4.2016, (Ex.C1); photocopy of bill, (Ex.C2); photocopy of job sheet, (Ex.C3) and closed the evidence.

7. Subsequently, opposite party No.1 appeared through its counsel and it was allowed to join the case proceedings at the stage of arguments.

8. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and opposite party No.1 and gone through the file carefully.

9. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 submitted that the complainant is required to prove his case by affirmative evidence. He is not entitled to any relief only for the reason that opposite parties have not filed any written version. He has alleged manufacturing defect in the mobile handset, but he has not produced any evidence to prove this fact. Moreover as per complainant, he submitted his mobile handset with service centre on 4.3.2016, which shows that he used the mobile handset in question for continuous period of 10 months, which shows that there is no manufacturing defect in the mobile handset. The complainant has also not produced any terms and conditions of warranty card. Therefore, he is not entitled to any relief.

11. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

12. Bill, (Ex.C2) proves that the complainant has purchased one mobile handset from opposite party No.2 on 13.5.2015, but as per this document, 'warranty is by company only'. He has not challenged this condition. Ex.C3, is the job sheet issued by opposite party No.3. It proves that the mobile handset was retained by opposite party No.3. He reported the problems of '4911 Display Touch Screen Not Working'. As per complainant, opposite party No.3 has failed to do needful and returned him the mobile handset. Of-course, the complainant has alleged that there is some manufacturing defect, but there is no evidence to corroborate this version. Mere allegations cannot take-place of evidence. The complainant has purchased the mobile handset on 13.5.2015 and job sheet is dated 4.3.2016, meaning thereby he has used the mobile handset for about 10 months. Had there been any manufacturing defect, the mobile handset could not have worked for such a long period. Therefore, the complainant is not held entitled for replacement of the mobile handset or refund of its price amount. However, the mobile handset was retained by opposite party No.3 and it was not returned to the complainant. This evidence is unrebutted and unchallenged, which proves deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.1 is manufacturer. Therefore, both are liable for this deficiency in service.

13. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.1000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party Nos.1 and 3 and dismissed qua opposite party No.2. Opposite party Nos.1 and 3 are directed to return the mobile handset to the complainant after its repair as per terms and conditions of warranty.

    It is further made clear that original warranty/guarantee shall stand extended for the remaining period from the date of delivery of mobile handset to the complainant, i.e from 4.3.2016 till date of delivery.

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

15. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

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

    Announced:-

    16-12-2016

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member