Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/413/2015

Priyanka - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax Infromatics Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Nitin Gupta

23 Nov 2015

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/413/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	03/07/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	23/11/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Priyanka daughter of Sh. Kamal Chand, resident of House No.613, Naya Goan, Mohali, Punjab.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

[1]  Micromax Informatics Ltd., 21/14 A, Phase-II, Naraine Industrial Area, Delhi – 110028, through its Corporate Head/ Managing Director (Manufacturer of Mobile Phone).

 

[2]  A.K.S. Telecom, SCO No.9, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager (Authorized Repairer of Mobile Phone).

 

[3]  Three Vee Marketing (P) Ltd., SCO No.1028-1029, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh (Seller of Mobile Phone).

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   MRS. SURJEET KAUR            PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate.
For OP No.1	:	Sh. Amandeep Singh.
For OP Nos.2 & 3	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, presiding MEMBER

 

 

                Ms.Priyanka (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainant’ for the sake of brevity) has filed this Consumer Complaint against M/s Micromax Informatics Ltd. & Others (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Opposite Parties’ for the sake of brevity), alleging that she purchased a Micromax Fire A104 mobile handset on 12.12.2014 from Opposite Party No.3 for Rs.7200/- vide Bill Annexure C-1, with one year warranty. Shortly after the purchase, the handset started developing various problems viz. battery drain, hanging, heating and other problems. For getting the aforesaid defects rectified, the Complainant, on the directions of Opposite Party No.3, visited the Opposite Party No.2 (Authorized Service Centre) on 22.12.2014 (Annexure C-2). The Complainant was told to deposit her handset and to collect the same after 04 days after necessary repairs. Thereafter, the Complainant visited Opposite Party No.2, thrice, but her mobile handset was not returned to her citing one reason or the other. Eventually, the Complainant was told by Opposite Party No.3 that her mobile handset was misplaced. In these circumstances, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 2505.2015 (Annexure C-3) upon the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 but the same failed to fructify. It has been stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed before this Forum, 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 the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 06.10.2015.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has stated that no question of repair of the mobile handset in question arose because its Authorized Service Centre had issued DOA (Dead on Arrival) letter to the Complainant on 22.12.2014 and as per the terms of the DOA the Complainant had to collect brand new handset from the Opposite Party No.3 (Retailer). It has been pleaded that the Complainant handed over the handset to the Opposite Party No.3 for replacement, but the Opposite Party No.3 misplaced the same. 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 parties and perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1.

 

6.      It is evident from Annexure C-1 the Bill dated 12.12.2014, coupled with the duly sworn in affidavit of the Complainant, that she purchased one Micromax Fire A104 Mobile Handset for Rs.7200/- from Opposite Party No.3. It is important to note that over this bill, there is a mention of DOA date as 18.12.2014. The main grouse of the Complainant is that when she deposited the handset in question with Opposite Party No.2, for repairs, on 22.12.2014, the same has not been returned to her, till date.

 

7.      The stand taken by the Opposite Party No.1 (Manufacturer) is that the Complainant was issued DOA letter on 22.12.2014, when she approached its Authorized Service Centre (Opposite Party No.2). It has been urged that as per the terms & conditions of the DOA, it was the Complainant only who had to collect the brand new mobile handset from the Opposite Party No.3 (Retailer).

 

8.      It is important to note that in Para No.4 of the Complaint, it has been alleged by the Complainant that the Opposite Party No.3 (Retailer) is not in a position to return the mobile handset in question as it has misplaced the same.

 

9.      Pertinently, the Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 chose not to appear before this Forum and were proceeded exparte vide order dated 06.10.2015. Therefore, the evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted against them. 

 

10.      Since there is authentic document to prove that the process of handing over a brand new mobile handset to the Retailer (Opposite Party No.3) through the Authorized Service Centre (Opposite Party No.2) had to be accomplished from the site of the Manufacturer (Opposite Party No.1), therefore, the present Complaint merits acceptance qua all the Opposite Parties.

 

11.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed  to:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.7200/- to the Complainant being the invoice price of Micromax Fire A014 mobile handset;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

[c]  To pay Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.

 

12.      The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr. No. [a] & [b] above shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

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

Announced

23^rd November, 2015                                        Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

“Dutt”                                                                                        MEMBER