Haryana

Hisar

290/2014

Kirshan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

05 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, HISAR   

              

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 290 of  14                                      

                                                          Date of Institution         :          03.07.2014

                                                           Date of Decision  :           06.02.2015

 

Krishan Kumar aged 35 years son of Shri Udey Singh,  Soni Cycle Works,  in front of Captain School Mill gate, Hisar Tehsil and District Hisar.

 

                                                                                                                                   

..Complainant                               Versus

 

1. Micromax  Informaltics Ltd. 21/14A, Phase-II, Naraina Industrial Area Delhi-110028 through its Manager.

 

2. YEH Bazar.com.,S-14, 2^nd Floor, Haws Sadak, opp. Chambal power House Civil Lines, City Jaipur, State Rajasthan, P.N.302006 through its Manager.

 

3. Sanap Deal, Mr. Hari Singh, Khasra No.10/13/1, Revenue Estate Old Gurgaon Road Near Karam Dharam Kanta village Samalkha, Delhi-110037 through its Manager.

 

4. M/s Global Communication, Green Square Market, Shop No.259 (FF), near Agarsen Bhawan, Hisar-125001 through its Divisional Manager.

                                                     ..Opposite parties

 

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

 

Before:   SHRI VINOD JAIN, PRESIDENT

     SMT.  RAJNI GOYAT, MEMBER.     

 

Present:    Sh. KrishanKumar-complainant in person.

                 All the opposite parties already ex-parte.

                

 

ORDER

 

                Case of the complainant Krishan Kumar  is that on 20.06.2014,  he had received one mobile hand set Micromax Canvas Power A96, black in colour, IMEI/Serial No.911353351390167 from Sanap Deal i.e. from opposite party No.3 against payment of Rs.7282/-. It was as per his order No.2272345901,  sub order No.3086991476. He had received it through courier service. Micromax Informaltics Ltd. i.e. opposite party No.1 is the manufacturing company of the mobile hand set.  He found various defects in the mobile hand set like hang up, slow process, problem in receiver mic set. As per the scheme of opposite party No.3  in case of any defect in the mobile  hand set found  within a period of 7 days of its, then its price would be refunded. That on 24.6.2014, he had to go to the service centre i.e. opposite party No.4,  with all those complaints, but they returned it, the same day.  But still the  mobile hand set was having  same problems. The complainant then made telephonic call to opposite party No.3, on its telephone No.9212692126, from his own mobile No.9017983609,  asking the refund of the money, as the mobile hand set had become  out of order within 3 days of its receipt, but his request was not accepted; hence this complaint  for a direction to the opposite parties for refund of its price,  with up to date interest, besides for his harassment, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses.

2.           All the opposite parties were duly proceeded ex-parte vide order of this forum dated 20.10.2014.

3.          In order to make out  his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C-1 copy of sale invoice dated 17.6.2014; Ex.C-2 copy of  job sheet dated 24.6.2014,  Ex.C-3 copy of warranty card and Ex.C-4 his own supporting affidavit.

4.         Today opposite parties No.1 &4 have filed their written reply by putting their appearance through Sh.R.C. Bhardwaj Advocate  since the opposite parties No.1 & 4 have already been proceeded ex-parte, so legally they have no right to file their written statement. Any how pleaded case of the opposite parties No.1 & 4 is that of simple denial that as  there is no manufacturing defect,  so complainant is not entitled for the  refund of the price of the mobile hand set. We do not find any merit in this contention. The mobile hand set was sold to the complainant, by opposite party No.3, with the understanding that in case any problem is  faced with the mobile hand set,  within  7 days then its price would be refunded. Copy of job sheet Ex.C-2 dated 24.6.2014 shows that there were many problems in the mobile hand  set i.e. why the complainant had to go to the service centre. His contention that he made mobile call to opposite party No.3 requesting the refund of the money  and for rejection of his request  also get full support and corroboration from his supporting affidavit. The opposite parties have opted ex-parte. This fact also points towards the correctness of the case of the complainant. Therefore, it is proved that just after three days of getting the mobile hand set, it showed many defects. Complainant was entitled for the refund of its price,  but it was not  refunded to him. It is not only deficiency of service but is also un fair trade practice.

5.            Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite parties No.1 to 3, to refund price of the mobile hand set i.e. Rs.7282/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 3.7.2014  till payment. On receiving the payment, complainant shall   return the mobile hand set. Complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.3000/- for his harassment, mental agony etc.  and litigation expenses of Rs.550/-, against  opposite parties No.1 to 3, who shall be jointly and severely liable to comply the order.

Announced.                                                          President,

06.02.2015                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Hisar.

                                     

 

                                                                        Member/06.02.2015