Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/694/2014

Deepak Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax Mobile Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Feb 2015

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/694/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	20/10/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	27/02/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Deepak Singh S/o Sh. Mukhtiar Singh, R/o H.No.431, Milk Colony, Dhanas, Chandigarh.

 

….Complainant

Versus

 

[1]  Micromax Mobile Company Limited, Head Branch Office,    90-B, Sector 18, Gurgaon, through its Managing Director/ Branch Head.

 

[2]  M/s Anmol Watches & Electronics Private Limited, Registered Office: SCO 1012-1013, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

 

[3]  Service Centre at SP-ASK Telecom, SCO 1092, First Floor, Cabin No.10/11, Near Tata Croma, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

 

[4]  M/s Future Communication, SCO 37, First Floor, Sec.41-D, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor. (Deleted vide order dated 20.01.2015)

….Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    SH. P.L. AHUJA             PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                MEMBER

                     

Present:      Sh. R.S. Duggal, Counsel for Complainant.

Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 ex-parte.

Opposite Party No.4 deleted.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

1.      Briefly stated, the Complainant had purchased one Micromax S-A114 mobile handset on 23.12.2013 from Opposite Party No.2 for Rs.12,390/-, vide Retail Invoice Annex.C-1. It has been alleged that on encountering problem with regard to working of Sensor in the said mobile handset, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.3 (authorized Service Centre) for getting the defects removed. A job sheet dated 20.3.2014 was issued by the Opposite Party No.3 (Annexure C-2). However, the Opposite Party No.3 returned the mobile handset to the Complainant on 10.4.2014, without getting the defects removed. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, he served a legal notice dated 11.07.2014 upon the Opposite Party No.2, but that too failed to evoke any positive results. Hence, the present Complaint.

 

 

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.1 to 3 despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 03.12.2014 and 20.01.2015.  

 

 

3.      In view of the endorsement made by the learned Counsel for the Complainant, on the order sheet itself, the name of Opposite Party No.4 was ordered to be deleted from the array of Opposite Parties, vide order dated 20.01.2015.

 

 

4.      Complainant led evidence.

 

 

5.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant and have also perused the record.

 

6.      It is evident from Annex. C-1 the retail invoice dated 23.12.2013 that the Complainant purchased one Micromax S-A114 mobile handset from the Opposite Party No.2 for Rs.12,390/-. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the Complainant that the said mobile handset started giving problem within a short period of three months of its purchase. Annexure C-2 is the Job Sheet dated 20.03.2014 issued by the Opposite Party No.3 with remarks as “Sensor not working only when we use the device in sun area”. As per the case of the Complainant the mobile handset was returned by the Opposite Party No.3 to him on 10.04.2014. Annexure C-3 is the legal notice dated 11.07.2014 sent by the Complainant, through his counsel, to the Opposite Party No.2, which was never replied by it.

 

 

7.      It is important to note here that Opposite Parties have not appeared to contest the claim of the Complainant and preferred to proceed ex-parte which draws an adverse inference against them. The evidence of the Complainant has gone unrebutted against them.

 

 

8.      In the present Complaint, the Complainant was deprived of the usage of the mobile handset in question even after spending a handsome amount on its purchase. It is pertinent that inspite of being within the warranty period, the defect reported was not rectified by the Opposite Parties. Moreover, the attitude of the Opposite Party No.3 in keeping the mobile handset in its custody for 20 days and returning the same to the Complainant without removing the defects proves deficiency in service which certainly caused physical and mental harassment to the Complainant. 

 

 

9.      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:-

 

[a]  To replace the defective mobile handset of the complainant with a brand new one of the same make, model & configuration, with fresh warranty. 

 

[b]  To pay Rs.7,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[C] To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

 

10.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; failing which, the Opposite Parties shall be liable to refund the cost of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.12,390/- as well as compensation amount of Rs.7,000/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 20.10.2014 till realization, besides litigation expenses.

 

11.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

27^th February,2015                                      

Sd/-

 (P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER