DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2016
Date of institution: 22.07.2016 Date of decision : 14.02.2017
Gurpreet son of late Ajit Pal, resident of House No.953, Housing Board, Dhanas, UT, Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
Versus
Micromax, M/s. Luxmi Communication, SCO 78, First Floor, Mohali, Phase-2, Mohali.
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Sections 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Ms. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
OP ex-parte.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
The complainant Gurpreet has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Sections 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
The complainant had purchased mobile set S @ 345 CANVAS SELFIE LENS GRE from the OP on 08.09.2015 for Rs.8,600/-. On the evening of 20.01.2016 the mobile developed problems of hanging and heating and the complainant took the mobile handset to the OP but the OP failed to repair it. The complainant is suffering loss of Rs.200/- daily for not having the mobile phone with him. Non repair of mobile handset is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The mobile is lying with the OP for repair. Hence, the complainant has sought direction to the OP to repair the handset or refund its price to the tune of Rs.8600/-; to pay him Rs.4,900/-for mental agony and harassment and Rs.1500/- litigation expenses.
2 Notice sent to the OP was delivered on it on 12.08.2016. However, none appeared for it despite repeated calling. Accordingly, the OP was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.09.2016.
3. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; copies of retail invoice Ex.C-1 and job sheet Ex.C-2.
4. The complainant has submitted that despite his repeated visits to the OP, his mobile handset is not being repaired and returned to him by the OP. In the absence of mobile hand set, the complainant is suffering business loss. Thus as per the complainant, by removing the defects in the handset, the OPs have committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
5. We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and oral submissions of the complainant. The document Ex.C-1 proves the purchase of handset from the OP by the complainant for Rs.8600/-. When the handset developed some problem of hanging and heating, the complainant took the handset to the OP and submitted it with the OP vide job sheet dated 20.06.2016 Ex.C-2. Till date the mobile handset is with the OP. The OP neither rectified the defects in the handset nor returned it to the complainant. Despite repeated visits of the complainant the OP had not rectified the problems in the handset which forced him to file the present complaint before this Forum. In the complaint also, the OP chose not to appear despite service. Non appearance of the OP shows that it has nothing to say with regard to the averments of the complaint. Thus, the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount of the mobile hand set from the OP.
6. Accordingly, we direct the OP to refund to the complainant the price of the mobile hand set to the tune of Rs.8,600/- (Rs. Eight thousand six hundred only). We also find that the complainant is entitled to a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) on account of mental agony and litigation cost. The present complaint stands allowed accordingly.
The OP is further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 08.02.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 14.02.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Ms. Natasha Chopra)
Member
