Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/803/2014

Ajay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax Informatics - Opp.Party(s)

S.C. Thatai

28 Aug 2015

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/803/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	08/12/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	28/08/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Ajay Kumar son of Sh.Rakesh Kumar, resident of House No. 3066, Sector 39-D, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1.   Micromax Informatics, Micromax House, 90-B, Sector 18, Gurgaon – 122015, Haryana, through its Managing Director.

 

2.   M/s Future Communication, SCO 28, 1^st Floor, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

3.   Anubhav Enterprises, SCO 1016, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Prop.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Nitin Thatai, Advocate.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Amandeep Singh, Advocate.
For OP No.2 & 3	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

          In brief, the Complainant had purchased one Micromax A190 mobile handset from Opposite Party No.3, on 11.08.2014, for Rs.11,500/-, having one year warranty, vide retail invoice Annexure C-1. It has been alleged that the touch of the handset in question stopped functioning, on 09.09.2014, upon which, it was taken to Opposite Party No.2, on 13.09.2014. After retaining the handset for few days, the Opposite Party No.2 returned the same to the Complainant, on 20.09.2014, after replacing its touch. It has been further alleged that on 22.09.2014, the Camera of the phone stopped functioning, and it was taken to the Opposite Party No.2, who returned the same to the Complainant, on 29.09.2014, after doing the needful. Thereafter, on 05.10.2014, due to non-functioning of the MIC of the said mobile, the Complainant again deposited it with the Opposite Party No.2, who after carrying out repairs, delivered the handset to the Complainant, on 16.10.2014. However, on checking, when the Complainant found that the mobile handset was not accepting the Sim Card, he again handed over the mobile handset to Opposite Party No.2 on the same day i.e. 17.10.2014, with the problem of no cellular access/no service vide job sheet Annexure C-2. The Opposite Party No.2 on 29.11.2014 handed over the repaired mobile handset to the Complainant with an assurance that it has fully been repaired. However, on 30.11.2014, the Camera of the mobile phone stopped functioning on account of which the Complainant again approached Opposite Party No.2 vide job sheet dated 1.12.2014 Annexure C-4 and since then the mobile phone was in the custody of Opposite Party No.2. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. 

  

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 09.04.2015.

 

3.     Opposite Party No.1 in its written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has disputed the visits of the Complainant to the Authorized Service Centre on 10.09.2014, 13.09.2014, as well as the contents of para nos.5 & 6 of the Complaint in the absence of any job cards for the said dates. It has been admitted that the Complainant visited the Authorized Service Centre on 17.10.2014 and after repairing the handset, the same was returned to him. It has been asserted that as per record of the answering Opposite Party, the handset was delivered to the Complainant on 07.11.2014 and not on 29.11.2014 as alleged by him. While admitting the deposit of the handset with the Authorized Service Centre on 1.12.2014, the answering Opposite Party submitted that the Camera of the handset was adjusted and necessary intimation was given to the Complainant, but he started raising illegal demands and demanded replacement only. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, answering Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

5.     We have heard the learned Counsel for the contesting parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments advanced on behalf of the Complainant. 

 

6.     It is evident from Annexure C-1 the retail invoice, coupled with the affidavit of the Complainant, that he purchased one Micromax A190 mobile handset, on 11.08.2014, for Rs.11,500/-, from Opposite Party No.3. Annexure C-2 is the job-sheet dated 17.10.2014 with the problem reported as ‘Cellular Access (GSM) no service’. Annexure C-3 dated 30.10.2014 is an e-mail by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties for replacement or refund of the cost price of the mobile handset as the Opposite Parties could not provide him the satisfactory services. Annexure C-4 is another job-sheet dated 01.12.2014 with the problem report as ‘Camera: Bad Image Back Camera’. As per the Complainant, after the submission of the defective mobile handset to the Opposite Party No.2, he never got the same back and the handset is still lying in the custody of Opposite Party No.2 since 01.12.2014.  

 

7.     The stand taken by Opposite Party No.1 is that the mobile handset was duly repaired and necessary intimation was given to the Complainant. It has been urged that the Complainant himself deliberately did not collect the mobile handset from the Service Centre.

 

8.     We feel that if Opposite Party No.1 had informed the Complainant regarding the repair of the mobile handset, it would have sent some written message to the Complainant from its side, but it has not produced any such evidence. Furthermore, Opposite Party No.2 only could clarify the fact regarding the repair of the mobile handset and any information being sent to the Complainant, after its repair. However, it has not come forward to contest the claim of the Complainant and clarify the situation or to corroborate the defence of Opposite Party No.1, rather it preferred to proceed against ex-parte which draws an adverse inference against it. The evidence of the Complainant has gone unrebutted against Opposite Party No.2.  

 

9.     The Complainant has been deprived of the possession of his mobile handset without any fault on his part. Evidently, the Complainant had spent Rs.11,500/- to purchase the handset having faith in the brand to facilitate himself and not for moving the Service Centre and then to this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the Opposite Parties. Reoccurrence of the fault(s) in the mobile handset in question, within two months of its purchase, points out towards the poor quality of the product. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Parties in not rectifying the defective mobile handset and non-returning of the same by keeping the same in its custody that too when it is within the warranty period proves deficiency in service on their part, which certainly has caused immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant.

 

10.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are directed, jointly and severally, to:-

 

 

[i]  To refund Rs.11,500/- being the invoice price of the Micromax A190 mobile handset;

 

[ii] Pay Rs.5,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[iii] Pay Rs.3,000/- towards costs of litigation;

 

11.     This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy; thereafter, the Opposite Parties shall pay the amount at Sr. No. (i) & (ii) above with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization, besides complying with directions at Sr. No.(iii) above.

 

12.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

28^th August, 2015                             

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER