Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/129/2018

Sh. Pawan Kumar Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax Informatics Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

06 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/129/2018
Date of Institution	:	15/03/2018
Date of Decision	:	06/06/2018

 

Pawan Kumar Bansal son of Sh. H.R. Bansal, resident of H.No. 1206, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh.

....Complainant

V E R S U S

 

1]       Micromax Informatics Limited, Micromax House, 90-B, Sector 18, Gurugram – 122015, through its Managing Director.

2]       Micromax Care Centre, SCO 54, 1^st Floor, Near Post Office, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh-160030, through its Incharge.

3]       Anmol Watches & Electronics (P) Limited, SCO 1012-13, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

…… Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.N.S. Jagdeva, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Manwar Singh, Auth. Agent of OP No.1 (OP No.1 ex-parte)
	;	OP Nos.2 and 3 ex-parte.

                       

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Sh. Pawan Kumar Bansal, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Micromax Informatics Limited and Others (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he had purchased one Micromax S Q414 Canvas Blaze mobile handset from Opposite Party No.3 on 05.06.2016 by paying an amount of Rs.6,490/- in cash vide bill Annexure C-1. The said handset did not function properly right from its purchase. Precisely, the problem was that the Complainant could hear the voice of other side; whereas, the voice of Complainant was not passing to the other side. The concern was reported to Opposite Party No.2 (located in Sector 35, Chandigarh at that time), who after rectifying the defect returned the hand handset to him, with the observation that the said problem would not occur again. However, again on encountering the similar problem in the handset, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2, who after retaining the handset, returned the same after one week, with the assurance that the fault has been rectified. Since the handset had been giving the same problem, the Complainant sent e-mails dated 3.5.2017 and 16.05.2017 to the Opposite Party No.1; whereafter, Opposite Party No.1 vide e-mail dated 17.5.2017 requested the Complainant to re-submit the device to Opposite Party No.2. As per the said request, Complainant submitted the device to Opposite Party No.2 on 19.05.2017. At the time of receipt of handset, Opposite Party No.2 gave in writing the extended warranty for one month i.e. 05.07.2017 to 05.08.2017 on the photocopy of the invoice and specifically mentioned therein that if the handset did not function properly it will be replaced (Annexure C-4). However, when the problem still subsisted, Complainant had to approach Opposite Party No.2 on 12.07.2017 with a request to replace the handset as the same was within the extended warranty period (Annexure C-5).  Since 12.07.2017, the handset is lying with Opposite Party No.2 and the same has not been replaced by it despite the fact that the handset had manufacturing problem. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act and conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainant have preferred the present Complaint.     
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte.
3.         Complainant led evidence.   
4.         We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the Complainant.
5.         In the present circumstances, the averments of the complaint have gone unrebutted in the absence of the Opposite Parties who were duly served and preferred neither to appear in person, nor through their Counsel. It is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Parties have certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as they ought to have repair/replace the subject mobile handset, being within the extended warranty period, which they failed to do and propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. At any rate, the Opposite Parties even did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant despite having approached for the same by the Complainant time and again. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Parties.
6.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are, jointly & severally, directed:-

[a]    To refund Rs.6,490/- being the invoice price of the mobile handset to the Complainant, along with interest @7% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 05.06.2016, till it is actually paid;

[b]    To pay Rs.2,500/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

[c]    To also pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

7.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @7% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of purchase i.e. 05.06.2016, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [b] above, shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c]. 
8.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced                                       

06.06.2018

                                 Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”