BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.493 of 2015

Date of Instt. 13.11.2015

Date of Decision : 30/06/2016

Kiran Pal Singh Sodhi resident of House No.88 Kasturba Nagar, Jalanhdar.

..........Complainant....... Versus

1 Mixcormax Head Office. Micromax House, 90B, Sector-18, Gurgaon Pin Code-122015. Tel: +91-124- 4811000. Fax: +91-124-4811099. Email: info@micromaxinfo.com

2 M/s. Gopal Telecom EH-198, Shop No.2 (GF), Civil Lines, G.T.Road Gujarat Palace, Jalandhar Pin Code 144001 (Contract Number 0181-502661)

Through its Authorized Representative/Service Centre owner

3 M/s. Gopal Service Centre, Shop No.36, Silver Plaza Complex, Opp.Sanjog Palace, Jalandhar Pin Code 144001 (Contact Number 0181-5054443)

4 Sethi Telecom 24, Phagwara Road Jalandhar Cantt.

Through its Prop./Partner/Manager/Authorized Representative

.........Opposite Parties......

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S.Bhupinder Singh (President)

Mrs. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Harjit Singh, Auth.Rep.of Complainant

Sh.Manuj Aggarwal, Adv. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1.

Opposite Party No.2 & 4 exparte

Opposite Party No.3 given up

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)\

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint with the submissions that he purchased a Micromax mobile with model Number A089 from Sethi Telecom i.e. Opposite Party No.4 for a sum of Rs.4850/- vide Invoice No.2146 dated 16.11.2014 with one year warranty. The said mobile set has been manufactured by opposite party no.1. Complainant submitted that the said mobile set has technical defects i.e. software error, display touch, Cellular and some time automatically used to get switched off. In the month of September, 2015, resultantly, the complainant approached opposite party No.3 authorised service centre of opposite party No.1 and handed over mobile set to opposite party No.3 vide Job Sheet No. * N090202-915-18993991* dated 04.09.2015. The opposite party No.2 told the complainant to get the mobile set after seven days, but when after seven days, the complainant went to opposite party No.3 to collect the mobile set, he found the said service centre was closed. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the complaint with Micromax service centre help line number 18605008286 regarding his mobile, who gave fake assurance to the complainant. Even after two months, when complainant visited number of times to the opposite parties for return of his mobile set, the opposite parties neither repaired the mobile set of the complainant nor returned the same to the complainant. The complainant made number of times e-mails to micromax Company i.e. 02.11.2015, 03.11.2015. 04.11.2015, but in vain. The complainant is, therefore, through this complaint prayed for refund of the price Rs.4850/- of the mobile set along with cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.8000/- and compensation for mental tension and harassment to the tune of Rs.50,000/- as he prayed for payment of Rs.62,850/- in all by the opposite parties to the complainant.

2. Notice of complaint was given to the opposite parties. None appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 & 4 despite of service and OP No.2 & 4 were proceeded against exparte. Whereas Opposite Party No.3 Service Centre which has been given up by the complainant. Sh.Manuj Aggarwal, Advocate appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 and got recorded his statement dated 08.04.2016 that opposite party No.1 is ready to pay the price of mobile hand set i.e. Rs.4850/- to the complainant without admitting its fault and negligence. However, opposite party did not want to file written statement. 3 In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA and also produced on record copy of retail invoice dated 16.11.2014 Ex.C-1, Job Sheet dated 4.5.2016 Ex.C-2 and copies of e-mails Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-10 and closed his evidence.

5. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. Counsels for the parties.

6. From the entire averments of the complainant and evidence produced on record, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant purchased Micromax mobile set from opposite party No.4 vide Invoice No.2146 dated 16.11.2014 Ex.C-1 for a sum of Rs.4850/- with one year warranty. The said mobile set worked properly for about ten months and the complainant for the first time approached opposite party No.3, authorised service centre of opposite party No.1 on 04.09.2015 vide Job Sheet Ex.C-2 with problem of display touch automatic cellular switched off etc. The said mobile set was taken by opposite party No.3 from the complainant to rectify the defects in the mobile set and opposite party told the complainant to collect his mobile set after seven days. But during this period, opposite party No.3 closed its business and did not return the mobile set to the complainant nor further whereabouts of that service centre came to the knowledge of the complainant and complainant gave up his claim against the opposite party No.3. Keeping in view these circumstances, opposite party No.1 i.e. manufacturing company of the mobile set appeared in this Forum and Counsel for opposite party No.1, Sh.Manuj Aggarwal, Advocate got recorded his statement dated 8.4.2016 stating that opposite party No.1 is ready to pay the price of mobile hand set in question i.e. Rs.4850/- to the complainant and does not want to contest this case. The complainant used mobile hand set for about ten months and he approached the opposite party No.3 for the first time on 04.09.2015. Whereas mobile set was purchased by complainant on 16.11.2014. The mobile set was taken by Opposite Party No.3 i.e. M/s.Gopal Service Centre and thereafter Service Centre was found closed and its whereabouts were not known and they did not return the mobile set to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 as a good will agreed to return the whole price of the mobile set to the complainant i.e. Rs.4850/-, but the complainant did not agree. Under these circumstances, this Forum is of the opinion that the complainant used the mobile hand set for about 10 months and now opposite party No.1 manufacturing company of the mobile set is ready to pay the entire price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.4850/- to the complainant, because Service Centre i.e. Opposite Party No.3 has closed and its whereabouts are not known and Opposite party No.3 also did not return the mobile set in question to the complainant. In these circumstances, we are of the firm view that opposite party No.1 is justified in returning the entire price of the mobile set to the complainant. Consequently, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 qua the complainant. Resultantly, this complaint is disposed of with the direction to opposite party No.1 to pay the price of the mobile set in question to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of this case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Bhupinder Singh

30.06.2016 Member Member President