Haryana

Panchkula

CC/173/2019

PRASHANT KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD - Opp.Party(s)

JOY & VISHAL KUMAR

23 Dec 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.

                                                       

 

Consumer Complaint No	:	173 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	15.03.2019
Date of Decision	:	23.12.2019

 

Prashant Kumar s/o Shri Mohan Lal r/o House No.111, Subhash Nagar, H.M.T. Pinjore, District Panchkula, Pincode 134101

                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

1.     Micromax Informatics Ltd., through its Managing Director, 288A, Udyog Vihar Phase IV, Gurugram, Haryana, India, Pincode 122015

2.     The Managing Director, Micromax Informatice Ltd., 288A, Udyog Vihar Phase IV, Gurugram, Haryana, India, Pincode 122015.

3.     Micromax Care, SCO-11, First Floor, Sector-11, Panchkula.

                                                                                                                                                           ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Mr.Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person with Sh.Joy, Advocate for complainant

OPs No.1 & 2 already ex-parte vide order dated 02.05.2019.

Defence of OP No.3 already struck off vide order dated 09.08.2019.

                       

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that the elder  brother of complainant had gifted a Micromax model No.A120 (Gray) bearing IMEI I No.911367100032441 and IMEI 2 No.9113671002-82947, to complainant after using it for some time and he(the elder brother of the complainant) had died on 24.04.2015.  After using by the complainant for some days it developed a snag which later on found to be a problem of the charging point. The mobile was already out of warranty. The complainant took the mobile to the Micromax care, he was told that snag can be rectified, believing upon customer care executive advice at Mircromax Care, complainant gave his mobile to Micromax Care at SCO No.11, First Floor, Sector-11, Panchkula on 04.03.2016 and a proper job-sheet was made, but the jobsheet was filled with hand due to computer problem and the complainant was told to receive his mobile on 05.3.2016. When the complainant went to the Micromax Care on 07.03.2016 at the above said address they told that as the part is not readily available therefore request is made to the concerned to make it available and it will take another 2-3 days. Similarly, complainant made so many visits to fetch his mobile but every time he visited the office the same excuse of 2-3 days was made.  The complainant also visited the office of Micromax Care office at the above mentioned address in March 2018 he was told that the office has closed its business. Under these circumstances, a legal notice dated 08.09.2018 was served upon the OP. On receiving the legal notice One Mr. Sumer Singh who introduced himself from the legal department of Micromax Informatice Ltd., called Advocate of the complainant and took the number of the complainant. Thereafter, Sumer Singh called many times and had telephonic conversation between 05.10.2018 to 16.11.2018 with the complainant to negotiate and settle the matter but he too stop calling after few days. Further, the Sumer Singh asked the complainant to send the job-sheet so as he could track the mobile phone and he send the same through whatsapp at Sumer Singh whatsapp contact but the representative failed to provide any information to the complainant. Due to the said act and conduct of OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony, financial loss and harassment. Hence, the present complaint.  

2.             Notices were issued to the OPs No.1 & 2 through registered post (vide registered post No.CH057701408IN and CH0577012521IN respectively on 27.03.2019), to the OPs No. 1 & 2 which were not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OPs No.1 & 2; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of Ops No.1 & 2, they were proceeded ex-parte by this Forum vide its order dated 02.05.2019.

                Upon notice, the OP No.3 has appeared to contest the complaint but he did not file his written statement despite availing several opportunities. Therefore, the defence of OP No.3 was struck off by this Forum vide its order dated 09.08.2019.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-6 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

                During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted the duly attested Affidavit dated 09.12.2019 of complainant alongwith the price lists as obtained from website of Amazon and Flipkart, which we have taken on record as Mark  ‘CB ‘, Mark A and Mark ‘B’ respectively for the proper adjudication of the case in a fair manner.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, considered the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for complainant and gone through the record minutely and carefully.

5.             The mobile hand set, namely, Micromax model no. A120(Gray) bearing IMEI 1 No.911367100032441 and IMEI 2 No.91136- 7100282947 being gifted by the deceased brother of the complainant, as per averments of the complainant, was entrusted to OP No.3 on 04.03.2016, in connection with the rectification of defects in the said mobile set. It is contended that a computer generated hand written job-sheet dated 04.03.2016(Annexure C-2) duly signed by the official on behalf of the OP No.3 was provided to the complainant. It is stated that the charging of the mobile set got defected as is evident from the job-sheet(Annexure C-2). It is further stated that one Sumer Singh on behalf of the OPs No. 1 & 2 contacted the complainant, after the receipt of legal notice dated 08.09.2018(Annexure C-3) from the complainant through his counsel, to negotiate and to settle the matter but the grievances of the complainant has not been settled so far. The learned counsel invited our attention towards Annexure C-5 which contains the call history of telephonic conversation held between the complainant and aforesaid Sumer Singh on behalf of the Ops No. 1 & 2. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted by directing the OPs to make the payment of price of the mobile set alongwith the compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and litigations charges.

 6.            The OPs No.1 & 2 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded ex-parte, for which adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them. The non-appearance of the OPs No.1 & 2 despite notice shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant.

7.             The OP No.3 failed to file the written statement within the stipulated period and thus, its defence was struck off by this Forum vide order dated 09.08.2019. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

8.             On the other hand, the version of the complainant is fully supported and corroborated by his affidavit Annexure C-A, along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-6.

9.             The complainant has not submitted any purchase bill of the mobile set in question. However, the computer generated hand written job-sheet dated 04.03.2016(Annexure C-2) contains the IMEI 1 No. 911367100032441 and IMEI 2 No.911367100282947. The aforesaid job-sheet(Annexure C-2) further speaks about the defect in the mobile set as under:-

Jack charging no(no charging).

10.            Further, a perusal of call history(Annexure C-5) reveals that  one  person, namely, Sumer Singh from the legal department of OPs No.1 & 2 held a detailed telephonic conversation with the complainant on several dates between 05.10.2018 to 16.11.2018 in order to negotiate and settle the matter. It has further been revealed, from the perusal of Annexure C-6 that the copy of job sheet dated 04.03.2016(Annexure C-2) was forwarded through whatsapp message to aforesaid Sumer Singh as desired by him. Thus, we are satisfied with the version of the complainant that the aforesaid mobile set in question  was entrusted to OP No.3 for carrying out the necessary repairs but the same was not returned to the complainant either repaired or unrepaired.

11.            Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the OPs have neither responded to the notice nor have they opted to controvert the precise cognizable averments made by the complainant having a very relevant bearing upon the adjudication of the grievance, thus, the only distilled view is that the complainant has been able to prove the genuineness of the grievance that the OPs had committed deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been detailed in the complaint, as also the affidavit in support thereof. Therefore, we conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of the Ops No.1 to 3 while delivering services to the complainant; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

12.            Regarding relief, it may be mentioned here that the complainant has submitted a duly attested affidavit dated 09.12.2019 alongwith the price list as obtained from website of Amazon and Flipkart. As per price lists obtained from site of Amazon and Flipkart , the price has been shown as Rs,11,500 and Rs. 11,999/- respectively.  However, the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.11000/-  as price of the mobile set  vide legal notice dated 08.9.2018(Annexure -3); therefore, it would be just reasonable and fair to direct the OPs to make the payment of Rs.11,000/-  towards the price of the mobile set in question.

13.            As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.1 to 3.

1. To make the payment of Rs.11,000/- towards the price of the mobile set to the complainant alongwith @9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.
3. To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-as litigation charges.

14.            The OPs No.1 to 3 shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OPs No. 1 to 3 failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 to 3. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.  

Announced on: 23.12.2019

 

          Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini             Satpal

                  Member                Member                                      President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                         Satpal

                                         President