Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1397/2015

Pargat Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax Informatics - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Kali Ram Garg

15 Jul 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                          

                                                                   Complaint no. 1397                                                                                              

                                                                   Instituted on:  26.10.2015

                                                                   Decided on:    15.07.2016

 

Pargat Singh son of Shri Harbans Singh resident of village Badrukhan, Near Dhira Di Chakki, District Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant

                                Versus

1. Micromax Informatics Ltd. through its Managing Director, 21/14-A Phase-II, Naraina Industrial Area Delhi-110026
2. Customer Care Officer, Micromax Informatics Ltd. 90 B, Sector 18, Gurgaon, Haryana-122015.
3. M/s National Time, through its Proprietor Court Road, Sangrur0148001.
4. M/s Kings Electronics through its Proprietor/ Partner authorized service centre of Micromax Informatics Ltd. Guru Nanak Colony, Near Bus Stand, Opposite patwar Khanna, Sangrur.                                                         ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT    :       Shri Sachin  Garg  Advocate                          

 

FOR  THE OPP. PARTIES          :       Shri Ashish Grover, Advocate

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Pargat Singh  complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a mobile set of Micromax 350 model Sermo B-430 vide invoice number 6953 dated 24/06/2014  for an amount of Rs.21300/-  from OP No.3 under  warranty of one  year. After one week of its purchase,  said mobile set started giving problems i.e. reboots, restarts bad image and battery charging etc. for which the complainant approached the OP No.3 who advised him to approach OP No.4. On his advice, the complainant approached the OP No.4 who returned the mobile set saying that there was a minor defect but problem persisted.  The complainant again visited the OP No.4 on 03.09.2014 with same problems but OP No.4 again returned the set saying that the same has been set right but the problem was not solved.  Thereafter the OP No.4 changed the mobile set with Sweep hand set having model number A300 and gave a note in this respect on the original invoice dated 24.06.2013. The changed  sweep cell also  started giving problems  for which the complainant again approached the OP No.4  and OP No.4 retained the same with it by saying that the same will be sent to OP No.2 for thorough checking as he was also of the view that there is a manufacturing defect which cannot be set right at its premises. Since then the complainant has been regularly approaching the OP No.4 for getting it but same has not been delivered. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to refund the price amount of mobile set of  Rs.21300/- along with interest @18% per annum from 24.06.2014,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OPs, legal objections on the grounds of maintainability and  cause of action have been taken up. On merits, purchase of the mobile set in question is admitted. It has been stated that the complainant approached the OP no.4  with defective mobile set which was sent to the company for repair but the same was curable, therefore OPs gave new swapped mobile to the complainant on 30.10.2015.  It has been further stated that the complainant again approached on 05.08.2015  with OP No.2 with the defect of power does not switch on.  The complainant handed over the mobile set to the OP No.4 and OP No.4 rectified  the defects of mobile set and intimated the complainant to take back the mobile set in question but the complainant himself in default by not taking back the mobile set from the OP No.4. The mobile set in question is in OK condition.

3.             In his evidence, the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered in their evidence only an affidavit of Nirbhai Singh Ex.OP-1 and closed evidence.

4.             It is Ops  admitted case that earlier the complainant purchased a mobile set of micromax company from OP no.3.  The OPs have also admitted that the complainant approached  OP no.4 with  the defective mobile set and same was sent to the company for repair but  the defective mobile set was not curable and  OPs gave to the complainant new swapped mobile set A-300 .  Further, Ops have also admitted that  on 5.8.2015  the  complainant again approached OP no.2 with the defect  of power  not switch on and thereafter the defects were rectified  and complainant was intimated to take back the mobile set in question but he did not come. Surprisingly,  the OPs have not produced any cogent evidence/ document by which the complainant was intimated that the mobile set was now in working condition and he can take back the same. The OPs  have also not stated that by which method the complainant was intimated about it.

5.             To prove his case, the complainant has produced on record lengthy evidence  i.e. copies of job sheets Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-8  and affidavit of an expert namely Mr. Kamalpreet Singh proprietor of  Kamal Communications, Sangur along with copy of his certificate and expert opinion which are Ex.C-2, Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 respectively on record.  In his expert opinion, Mr. Kamalpreet Singh has stated that after through checking and using the said mobile  phone 2/3 days  he found that the defect has arisen  in the said  mobile phone due to manufacturing defect and the said problem / defect is not curable one.

6.             Against the evidence of the complainant, the Ops have not produced any cogent, reliable and praiseworthy evidence on record to prove their case rather they produced only an affidavit of Mr. Nirbhai Singh, proprietor of Kings Electronics, which, in our opinion, is not sufficient to prove the case of the OPs.  From the perusal of the written statement  we find that OPs have also no courtesy even  to sign the written statement which was signed by their counsel only on their instructions. From the facts stated above, we also find that the act and conduct of the OPs also show the negligence and deficiency  on the part of the OPs.   

7.             For the reasons recorded above, we find  that the OPs have miserably failed to prove their case rather the complainant has fully proved his case.  As such, the OPs are deficient in service and accordingly we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs  who are jointly and severally liable to give a new mobile in place of the defect mobile set which is already in the custody of the OPs or in the alternative to refund an amount of Rs.21300/- which is price amount of the mobile set in dispute  to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of purchase till realization. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.7000/- being the amount of compensation on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and also to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- as 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

                July 15, 2016

 

 

 

  ( Sarita Garg)    ( K.C.Sharma)          (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                        Member          Member                                President

 

 

 

 

 

BBS/-