Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/492/2015

Mithun Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax Infromatics Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Nitin Gupta

31 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/492/2015
Date of Institution	:	03/08/2015
Date of Decision	:	31/12/2015

 

Mithun Kumar r/o H.No.453, Labour Colony Surajpur, Rampur Siudi Kalka, Panchkula

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Micromax Informatics Ltd., 21/14 A, Phase-II, Naraine Industrial Area, Delhi, Pin-110028. Through its Corporate head/Managing Director (manufacturer of mobile phone).

2.     Micromax Service Centre c/o Abacus System Chandigarh, SCO No.824, NAC Market, above Indian Bank, Manimajra, through its Regional Manager (Authorised repairer of Mobile Phone).

3.     Raju Traders, SCF-212, Near local bus stand, Manimajra, Chandigarh (Authorised seller of mobile phone).

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Nitin Gupta, Counsel for the complainant
		OPs ex-parte

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         Sh. Mithun Kumar, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Micromax Informatics Ltd. and others, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that he purchased a Micromax A93 mobile Phone for Rs.7,000/- from OP-1 vide retail invoice dated 10.4.2015 (Annexure C-1). 

                According to the complainant, in the month of June 2015, the mobile phone started giving hanging, mick problem, heating and other problems for which he approached OP-3.  The complainant was advised to keep on using the mobile phone and told that the same would get resolved automatically in 2-3 days. The complainant waited for 2-3 days, but, the problems were still existing.  On the instructions of OP-3, the complainant approached OP-2 and brought all the defects to the knowledge of its representative and he was told to collect the mobile phone after 4 days.  However, when the complainant went to collect the mobile phone, he was told that mobile phone sold by OP-3 was not a genuine mobile phone of Micromax. Thereafter the complainant immediately approached OP-3 and asked for refund of the amount, but, it refused and told that the mobile phone sold was a genuine mobile of Micromax.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.         OP-1 was duly served, but, since none appeared on its behalf, therefore, vide order dated 28.9.2015, it was proceeded exparte. 
3.         OPs 2 & 3 were duly served, but, since none appeared on their behalf, therefore, vide order dated 20.11.2015, they were proceeded exparte. 
4.         The complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.
5.         We have perused the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant. 
6.         The complainant has preferred the present complaint on the ground that he had purchased one Micromax double sim mobile handset for Rs.7,000/- on 10.4.2015 (Annexure C-1) and within a few days of its use, the same started giving multiple problems of hanging, heating etc.  The complainant claims to have approached the authorised service centre (OP-2) who as per Annexure
   C-2 has disclosed that the mobile handset in question did not seem to be a genuine Micromax product as the IMEI number did not belong to the parent company. 
7.         OP-2 vide Annexure C-2 also advised the complainant to get in touch with the retailer i.e. OP-3 who in turn advised the complainant to keep using the phone, but, as the handset in question did not work to its optimum, the complainant felt harassed as neither the authorised service centre repaired the handset in question, declaring it to be a non-genuine product of Micromax company, and on the other hand, the seller OP-3 preferred not to refund the invoice price of the handset in question after much dilly dallying the issue.  The act of OP-3 in selling a non-genuine handset as a Micromax product, which the complainant had intended to buy, certainly amounts to an unfair trade practice on its part. Furthermore, even though confronted with the report of OP-2 declaring the handset in question to be a non-genuine one, OP-3 preferred not to raise the matter with the parent company about the genuineness of the handset sold by it. In these set of circumstances, OP-3 alone is answerable for the sale of a non-genuine handset as a Micromax product and the complainant deserves to be adequately compensated for such an unfair trade practice on the part of OP-3. 
8.         In view of the foregoing observations, the present complaint deserves to succeed qua OP-3. The same is allowed against it and is dismissed qua OPs 1 & 2 finding no merit.  The OP-3 is directed :-

(i)     To refund the invoice price of the handset in question i.e. Rs.7,000/- as per Annexure C-1

(ii)    To pay a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of unfair trade practice and causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant.

9.         This order be complied with by OP-3 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned in para 8 above, with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-		Sd/-
31/12/2015	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]		[Jaswinder Singh Sidhu]
hg	Member		Presiding Member