Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 08.

                                                          Instituted on     : 02.01.2018.

                                                          Decided on       : 16.11.2018.

Rishi Pal son of Shri Partap Singh resident of H.No.1912-A/18, Green Park, Kanheli Road, Rothak.

                                                          .......................Complainant.

                             Vs.

1. Aggarwal Enterprises, Shop No.49-A, Palika Bazar, Rohtak-124001.
2. Micromax M/s Sai Security Systems Near Malabar Guest House, Green Road, Rohtak.
3. Manager Customer Relations Micromax Informatics Ltd., Micromax Hose 90B, Sector-18, Gurgaon. Pin122005.

                                                          ……….Opposite parties.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT.SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER

Present:       Sh.Puneet Chahal, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Opposite parties exparte.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased a mobile phone Micromax Vieo-2 from the respondent No.1 vide invoice no.9485 dated 24.06.2017 for Rs.5000/- . That respondent no.3 is the manufacturer and  respondent no.2 is the service center. That after some time of purchase, the mobile set had become dead and complainant contacted OP No.1 & 2 for repair. Opposite party No.2 kept the mobile for repair and after sometime returned the same after repair but the mobile is not usable after repair. That complainant met with the opposite party no.2 many times for removing the defects of mobile set but OP No.2 did not provide complete service and flatly refused to issue any job sheet or complaint number to the complainant.  That the act of opposite parties of selling a defective mobile is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of mobile set alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice issued to OP No.1 & 2 received back duly served and notice sent to OP No.3  through registered post not received back either served or unserved. However, none appeared on behalf of OP No.1 to 3. Hence OP no.1 to 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.02.2018 of this Forum.

3.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and closed his evidence.

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          Perusal of the record reveals that as per bill Ex.P1, the complainant had purchased the mobile on 24.06.2017 and as per job sheet Ex.P2 dated 13.09.2017, there were problem of Phone locks up, not responding and the mobile was within warranty period. The contention of complainant is that the mobile phone in question could not be repaired by the OPs despite his repeated requests within warranty period and the mobile in question is having manufacturing defect.  On the other hand 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.  Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and OP No.3 being manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set.

6.                          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.3 to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards cost of mobile set alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 02.01.2018 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.1500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.  However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile set in question to the OPs at the time of payment by the opposite parties.

7.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.

8.                          File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

16.11.2018.

                                                          .....................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                                        Saroj Bala Bohra, Member