Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1681/2015

Tarsem Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax Informatics Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri R.S.Toor

06 Sep 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                  Complaint no. 1681                                                                                                

                                                                  Instituted on:   15.12.2015                                         

                                                                   Decided on:    06.09.2016

 

Tarsem Singh son of Shri Amarjit Singh resident of village Jhaneri, Sub Tehsil Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and District Sangrur.    

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.   Micromax Informatices Limited, Micromax House 90-B, Sector 18, Gurgaon-122015 through its Managing Director.

2.   M/s Kings Electronics Micromax authorized service centre, Thalesh Bagh, Opposite BSNL Park, Outside Nabha Gate, Sangrur through its authorized signatory.

3. Bhatia Mobile Hut, Lahori Gate, Near Bus Stand, Patiala through its Proprietor/ partner.

                                              ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :     Shri R.S.Toor,  Advocate                          

 

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

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.3            :       Exparte.

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

     

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Tarsem Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a Micromax mobile model A-300 from OP No.3 for Rs.14500/- vide bill no. 2142 dated 14.01.2015 under one year warranty.   In the month of September  2015,  the mobile set in question started creating network problems  of auto restart, hanging and bad camera image for which the complainant approached the OP No.3 who advised to approach the OP No.2. Then the complainant approached OP No.2  who kept the set with it and told that there is software problem and  after reinstallation of software  the OP no.2 handed over the mobile phone to the complainant. In the month of October 2015, the said phone again started giving same problems. The OP No.2 issued job sheet dated 29.10.2015. Thereafter the complainant a number of times went to the OP no.2 and requested to hand over the mobile set but OP no.2 put off the matter on one pretext or the other.  Thereafter the complainant requested the OP No.2 to replace the defective mobile set with new one as it was within the warranty period but they did not do so. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-

i)      OPs be directed to refund Rs.14500/-  as price of the cell phone along with 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,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs but despite service OP no. 3 did not appear and as such OP no.3 was proceeded exparte on 15.02.2016. The OPs No.1 and 2 had appeared through Shri Ashish Grover Advocate  and filed reply.

3.             In reply filed by OPs No.1 and 2, it is admitted that the complainant approached the OPs with complaint of defective mobile set in the month of October 2015.  The OP no.2 sent the said mobile set to the company for repair. After that  the company sent the new mobile set against the alleged defective mobile set which is upper model.  The OPs offered the same to the complainant but he refused to take the same. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 and 2.                 

4.             The complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs No.1&2 have tendered documents Ex.OPs1&2/1 and closed evidence.   

5.             Without touching the merits of the case, from the perusal of the written reply filed by the Ops No.1&2 we find that the OPs No.1&2 are ready to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with new one of upper model. Further, learned counsel for the OPs no.1&2 has also made a statement on  12.04.2016 in the Forum offering  new mobile set of upper model i.e. E-471 Canvas 4 Plus but learned counsel for the complainant declined to take new mobile set offered by the OPs because he had already purchased  new mobile set.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has specifically argued that OPs has a made the offer of new mobile set only on 12.04.2016 that is almost four months after filing the present complaint on 15.12.2015. He has further argued that in the present time  the mobile set is a most urgent necessity so, the complainant had purchased new mobile set on 29.01.2016. The complainant has produced on record retail invoice number 1695 dated 29.01.2016 for purchase of new mobile set. So, the complainant is entitled for refund the price amount of the mobile set in question.

7.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we find merit in the arguments of the learned counsel that offer of new mobile was made by Ops no.1&2 only after elapse  of almost four months of filing the present complaint. Moreover, offer of new mobile set of upper model made by the Ops no.1&2 itself shows the negligence and deficiency in service on their part. So, we feel that the complainant suffered great difficulty due to such act and conduct on the part of the OPs no.1&2 as he was compelled to file the present complaint and dragged into unnecessary litigation. Hence, we feel that the  OPs no.1&2 are liable to refund the price amount of the mobile set in question.  Accordingly, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs no.1&2 who are jointly and severally liable to refund                                                                                                                                           an amount Rs.14500/- which is price amount of the mobile set in dispute. The mobile set in question is already lying with the OPs no.1&2 as admitted by the OPs no.1&2 in their written reply.  We further order the OPs no.1&2 to pay to the complainant consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.5000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and  litigation expenses.

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                   Announced

                September 6, 2016

 

 

 

          ( Sarita Garg)                         (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                            

             Member                                     President

 

 

BBS/-