DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.264 of 07-04-2016

Decided on 23-02-2017

Suresh Kumar Bansal S/o Amrit Pal R/o # 21590, Street No.2, Dhobiana Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

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

2.Unitech Computerized Mobile Service Centre Near Bangi House Near Teacher Home, Bathinda, through its Manager/Owner.

3.Resoursys Saml, Khasra No.15/17, 24 G/F, Village Smalkha, Delhi, through its Proprietor/Owner/Partner.

.......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.Parveen Sharma, Advocate.

For opposite party Nos.1 & 2: Sh.Amit Ghai, Advocate.

Opposite party No.3: Ex-parte.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Suresh Kumar Bansal (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 he ordered opposite party No.1 through internet for supply of Micromax Canvas Blaze HD EGI 116 4GB mobile handset. Opposite party No.1 delivered the mobile handset vide invoice dated 25.10.2015 for Rs.7750/- through opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.1 further assured the complainant that the mobile handset is most popular and there will be no defect in it and in case there will be any defect, it will be replaced with new one.

3. It is alleged that the mobile handset is not working since the date of its purchase as it started creating touch problem, which creates difficulties to the complainant to use it. The complainant contacted opposite party No.1 and narrated the difficulties being faced. Opposite party No.1 was asked to replace the mobile handset with new one as per its assurance, but opposite party No.1 ran away from its promise and linger on the matter on one or other pretext. Later on, opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to approach opposite party No.2, the authorized service centre of Micromax. Accordingly, he approached opposite party No.2 on 25.12.2015, it after checking the mobile handset took the same in its possession vide job sheet. The complainant was asked to confirm on telephone number regarding status of his mobile handset. It was also disclosed that the mobile handset will be sent to opposite party No.1 being manufacturing defect. After sometime, the complainant approached opposite party No.2, it revealed that the mobile handset has been sent to the company and has not been received back. In the third week of March 2016, the complainant visited opposite party No.2, but it refused to attend him. He also approached opposite party No.1 and requested it to solve his problem, but it misbehaved with him.

   On this backdrops of fact, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and prayed for directions to opposite parties either to replace the mobile handset with new one or to refund of its price alongwith interest @ 24% per annum and also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for mental tension and harassment. Hence, this complaint.

4. Upon notice, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel whereas none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against it. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 also failed to file written version within the statutory period. As such, matter was posted for evidence of the complainant.

5. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 11.8.2016, (Ex.C1); photocopy of retail invoice, (Ex.C2); photocopy of job sheet, (Ex.C3) and closed the evidence.

6. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have tendered into evidence affidavit of Sikander Verma dated 8.9.2016, (Ex.OP1/1) and closed the evidence.

7. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully.

8. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above.

9. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions.

10. The complainant has placed on file job sheet, (Ex.C3). It proves opposite party No.2 has kept the mobile handset with it since 25.12.2015 and same has not been handed over to the complainant till date. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have produced on record one affidavit of Sikander Singh, (Ex.OP1/1). He has deposed in his affidavit that the mobile handset has been duly repaired and complainant has been called many times to take the delivery of his mobile handset, but he has not turn up to collect his mobile handset. There is no notice to prove that opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have ever asked the complainant to collect his mobile handset, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

11. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and dismissed qua opposite party No.3. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to handover the mobile handset in question 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 after excluding period from 25.12.2015 till date of delivery.

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

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

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

    Announced:-

    23-02-2017

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member