Haryana

Panchkula

CC/78/2015

SANJEEV KUMAR RANA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MICROMAX. - Opp.Party(s)

VISHAL MADAN.

02 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	78 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	24.04.2015
Date of Decision	:	02.09.2015

                                                                                          

Sanjeev Kumar Rana aged 41 years, s/o Sh.Subhash Chand, R/o # 226, Tribune Colony , Baltana, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Punjab.

                                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Micromax-Head Office: Micromax House, 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase 5, Gurgaon through its Chief Executive Officer.

2.       M/s Abacus Systems, SCO 824, NAC, Manimajra, Chandigarh through its Incharge/Owner.

3.       Taneja Communication, SCO 45, Shop No.205, Canam Plaza, Sector-11, Panchkula through its owner.

                                                                                 …. Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

                            

For the Parties:     Mr.Vishal Madan, Advocate for the complainant.

Mr.Amandeep Singh, Adv., for the Op No.1.

Ops No.2 and 3 already ex-parte.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. In brief, the complainant had purchased a mobile of Micromax Company from the Op No.3 vide bill No.964 dated 18.12.2014 (Annexure C-1) for an amount of Rs.15,500/- with a warranty of one year. After the purchase of one month, the mobile started giving problem as screen colour of mobile was diminished, loss of network/access. The complainant approached the OP No.2-authorised service center for rectifying the problem. Thereafter, on 05.03.2015, the problem of loss of access occurred again and the complainant approached the OP No.2 on 05.03.2015. The Op No.2 has set right the problem but the same problem again occurred within a day. On 07.03.2015, the complainant again deposited the mobile phone to OP No.2 which was delivered to the complainant on 26.03.2015. But the problem was not rectified. On 27.03.2015, the complainant again deposited the mobile phone to Op No.2 which has not been delivered to the complainant till date. The complainant requested the Ops No.2 and 3 to give him new mobile or refund the amount of the mobile phone but to no avail. The complainant has requested the higher officials of OP No.1 to give him a new mobile phone or refund the amount spent by him but to no avail. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The Op No.1 has appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the complainant purchase the mobile phone on 18.12.2014 and also approached the authorized service center for call drop problem. It is submitted that the call drop problem was due to the signal strength of the service provider not due to any problem with the handset. It is submitted that the Op No.1 never denied to provide its services to the complainant as assured under the terms & conditions of the warranty and the complainant agreed with the terms of warranty at the time of purchase of handset. It is submitted that the complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence to support his allegation of defect. It is submitted that the warranty period covers the range of faults that ensue normally from mechanical functioning of the mobile set without any interference or outside influences. It is submitted that the handset is to be repaired “free of charge” if it is covered under warranty. It is submitted that the handset is to be replaced when the repair of the handset is not possible or where the problem occurred again and again after repeated repairs. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Notice was issued to the OP No.2 through registered post and the same has not been received served or unserved. It is deemed to be served and the Op No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 03.06.2015.
4. Notice was issued to the OP No.3 through speed post and the same has not been received served or unserved. It is deemed to be served and the Op No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 03.06.2015.
5. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Op No.1 has made a separate statement in which he stated that his written statement might be read as his evidence and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.
7. A careful perusal of the file reveals that undoubtedly, the complainant purchased a Micromax mobile phone from the Op No.3 vide bill No.964 (Annexure C-1) dated 18.12.2014. The mobile was within the warranty period of one year from the date of purchase of the mobile. After few months, complainant faced some problem i.e. screen colour of mobile was diminished and loss of network/access in the phone and submitted the mobile phone to OP No. 2. The Op No.2 rectified the problem but after few days, the same problem again occurred. In the job sheet (Annexure C-3), it is mentioned in the column of problem reported that “4203 Cellular Access (GSM) Drops calls”. The Op No.2, after rectification of problem, delivered the mobile phone on 26.03.2015 to the complainant but the same problem remained in the mobile phone and again on 27.03.2015, the complainant deposited the mobile phone to the Op No.2 to rectify the problem but the handset has not been repaired and returned to the complainant till filing of complaint. The complainant also requested the Ops for refund of money spent by him to purchase the mobile phone or give him a new mobile phone. The Op No.1 also admitted in its written statement that the complainant approached the authorized service center with a problem of loss of network. However, the Op No.1 has not produced any cogent, convincing and reliable evidence in support of this contention. In the absence of any documentary proof that facts, pleading of the Op No.1 are hollow and devoid of any merit.
8. Evidently the complainant had spent the money for the purchase of brand new mobile handset to facilitate him but not for moving the service center and then this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the Ops. Even the defects in the mobile handset occurred after 1 month of its purchase, makes pointer towards the poor quality of the product. The complainant has been deprived of use of the mobile handset. In these circumstances, the act of the Op No.2 in keeping the handset of the complainant in its possession for a long time, clearly proves deficiency in service on its part which certainly caused immense mental and physical harassment of the complainant. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Ops are directed as under:-

(i)      To refund the cost of mobile i.e. Rs.15,500/- to the complainant alongwith 9% interest from the date of purchase till realization.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment.

(iii)    To pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation.

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

02.09.2015     S.P.ATTRI          ANITA KAPOOR          DHARAM PAL

                       MEMBER           MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                 

                                                                   DHARAM PAL

                                                                    PRESIDENT