Punjab

Sangrur

CC/583/2014

Rajesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax Informatics Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri K.S. Sidhu

24 Apr 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                      

                                                          Complaint no. 583                                   

                                                              Instituted on:  10.10.2014

                                                          Decided on:    24.04.2015

 

Rajesh Kumar aged about 36 years son  of Sh. Kishori Lal, resident of  Ward No.3, Lehragaga, Tehsil Lehra, District Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1.  Micromax Informatics Limited, 9/52/1, Kirti Nagar, Industrial Area, New Delhi-110015, through its Managing Director.

 

2.  M/s Kings Electronics, Micromax Authorized Service Centre, Guru Nanak Colony, Main Road, Opposite Patwar Khana, Bus Stand Road, Sangrur through its  authorized signatory.

 

3.   Mobile Gallery, Opposite M.C. Office, Prem Basti Road, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ partner.        

      ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri K.S.Sidhu, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1&2   :          Shri Ashish Grover, Advocate                        

 

FOR OPP. PARTY NO. 3     :  Exparte                     

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                                   

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Rajesh Kumar, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased Micromax Mobile Model C-4 ( Dual Sim) from the OP No.3 under bill number 7 dated 15.12.2013 for Rs.17,800/- against the warranty/guarantee of one year. The said mobile set started giving problem of battery backup and volume button of the same was also not in working condition. To rectify the same, the OP No.3 was approached who advised the complainant to approach OP No.2 on which he approached OP No.2 and requested to it to rectify the defect in the said mobile.  The OP No.2 retained the mobile set with it and issued a job sheet to the complainant. In the month of June 2014, the mobile set again  started giving  same problem and after checking the OP no.2 told the  complainant that there is motherboard problem.  Thereafter the OP No.2 returned the mobile set to the complainant without removing  the said defect  and told the complainant that there is some manufacturing defect in the  mobile set and the same is not repairable.  The complainant requested the OP No.1 to replace the defective mobile set as it is within the warranty period but the OP No.2 did not do anything. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to refund the purchase  price of the said mobile set in question i.e Rs.17,800/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,   

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs No.1&2, it is submitted that complainant never approached  the authorized service centre of the OPs and also not mention any specific date and job sheet number against which he approached the authorized service centre of the OPs. The OPs never denied to provide its after sale service and still ready to provide the same under the terms of the warranty. The complainant filed  the present complaint just to pressurized the OPs and dragged into unwarranted litigation to  cause financial  losses to the OPs. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops No.1 and 2. -

3.             The record shows that  after receipt of complaint notice was issued  to the OP No.3 but same was not served and thereafter service of the OP No.3 was effected through publication but none  appeared for it and as such OP No.3 was proceeded exparte on 02.01.2015.

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs No.1&2 have tendered documents Ex. OPs 1&2/1 to OPs No.1&2/3 and closed evidence.

5.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file, we find that the complainant had purchased Micromax Mobile Model C-4 ( Dual Sim)  from the OP No.3 for Rs.17800/- vide bill number 7 dated 15.12.2013 which is Ex.C-2 on record.  It is the complainant’s case that the said mobile set started giving problems after one month from the date of purchase for which he approached OP No.2 who issued job sheet. Further, the complainant has stated that said mobile set again started giving same problem and ultimately OP No.2 returned the mobile set to the complainant without removing the said defect and told that there is some manufacturing defect in the mobile set. On the other hand, the OPs No.1 and 2 have stated in their reply that the complainant never approached  the authorized service centre of the OPs  and also not mentioned any specific date and job sheet number against which he approached it.  The OPs never denied to provide its after sale service and still ready to provide the same under the terms of the warranty.

6.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the complainant has specifically mentioned in the complaint that to rectify the defect in the alleged mobile set he approached OP No.2  who issued a job sheet to him. Surprisingly,  the complainant has not produced  copy of the alleged job sheet issued by the OP No.2 in his evidence nor he has stated anything about the same.  The complainant has also not produced any report of an expert to prove that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question which is not repairable. Rather the OPs have produced an affidavit of Shri Nirbhai Singh, proprietor M/s Kind Electronics Micromax Mobile Authorized Care Centre, near Bus Stand Sangrur  who in his affidavit has stated that the defect was occurred due to mishandling of mobile phone and the same was curable and there is no manufacturing defect in  the said mobile phone. Further he stated that  he repaired the mobile set of the complainant and the complainant took the same from him  being fully satisfied.  The OPs have also produced copies of certificate of Nirbhai Singh Ex.OPs1&1/2 and Ex.OPs1&2/3 in this regard.    

8.             So, in view of the above discussion, we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the mobile set in dispute.  Moreover, he also failed to prove that he received back the mobile set in question from the OP No.2 in not proper working condition. Hence,  we dismiss the complaint of the complainant with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.

                Announced.

April 24, 2015.

 

 

 

 

( Sarita Garg)        ( K.C.Sharma)           (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                           

     Member                Member                           President

 

 

BBS/-