Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/570/2018

Sh. Rahul Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax Informatics Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

19 Jun 2019

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/570/2018
Date of Institution	:	06/11/2018
Date of Decision	:	19/06/2019

 

Rahul Sharma, R/o H.No.1312, Ground Floor, Sector 19, Panchkula (Haryana).

…..Complainant

 

                                                   V E R S U S

 

1]      Micromax Informatics Limited, 288 A, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurugram – 122015, through its Manager.

 

2]      Micromax Care, Quite Office No.1, Opposite Khukrain Bhawan, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

3]      Anmol Watches & Electronics (P) Limited, SCO 1014-1015 and SCO 1043, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Prop.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Opposite Parties ex-parte.

 

Per Dr.S.K Sardana, Member

1.         The facts, in brief, are that on 14.07.2018, the Complainant purchased one Micromax C1A CANVAS 1 2018 JET BL mobile handset from Opposite Party No.3, for a sum of Rs.6510 /- vide bill Annexure C-1. The Opposite Party No.1 provided one year warranty for the above said mobile handset and six months for accessories. It has been alleged that the back panel polish began to shrink from the very first month of its purchase. On 17.09.2018 when the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 stating the problem, Opposite Party No.2 refused to entertain the same on the ground that cosmetic issues would not be entertained during warranty period. Thereafter, the Complainant e-mailed several times to the Opposite Party No.1 from 19.09.2018 to 28.09.2018, but was not given satisfactory reply. Even the Complainant again visited Opposite Party No.2 on 17.10.2018 for solution to the problem, but to no success. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte.
3.         Complainant led evidence.      
4.         We have heard the Complainant in person and gone through the entire record with utmost care and circumspection.
5.         It is evident that the Complainant had purchased one Micromax C1 A CANVAS 1 2018 JET BL mobile handset for Rs.6510/- vide invoice dated 14.07.2018 (Annexure C-1). The Complainant argued that the Opposite Parties neither took any steps to rectify the defect in the mobile handset nor replaced the same with a new one. The Complainant visited the Opposite Party No.2 a number of times and even made various e-mails to Opposite Party No.1, but no avail.
6.         Significantly, the Opposite Parties did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Parties draws an adverse inference against them. The non-appearance of the Opposite Parties shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
7.         In these set of circumstances, it is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine as he has been made to run from pillar to post for no fault on his part. 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 rectify the defect in the mobile handset or to refund the price thereof, which they failed to do and rather 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 time & 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.
8.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

[a]    To refund Rs.6510 /- being the invoice price of the mobile handset to the Complainant;

[b]    To pay to the complainant Rs.2500/- as compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony and harassment;

[c]    To pay to the complainant Rs.2500/- as costs of litigation.

9.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @7% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c] above.
10.         The Complainant shall return the defective mobile handset in question to the Opposite Party No.3 after the compliance of the order.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
19/06/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”