Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/199/2016

Mohamad Wasif - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax - Opp.Party(s)

Palvinder Singh Sarna Adv. & Simran Sehgal Adv.

08 Feb 2017

ORDER

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	199 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	18.03.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	08.02.2017

 

 

 

 

Mohamad Wasif @ Wasim John s/o Sh.Moheen, R/o House No.1390, Saini Vihar, Phase-3, Baltana, District Mohali (Punjab.)

              …………..Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

1]   Micromax, Micromax House 90-B, Sector 18, Gurgaon 122015, through its Managing Director.

 

2]   The Managing Director, Micro Max House 90-B, Sector 18, Gurgaon 122015

 

3]   Himalaya Photo Store, SCO No.1032-33, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Manger/Office Incharge.

 

4]   AKS Telecom, SCO No.9, 1^st Floor, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh through its Manager/Office Incharge.

 

…………… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH.RAJAN DEWAN          PRESIDENT

                                MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA           MEMBER

SH.RAVINDER SINGH            MEMBER

           

Argued By: Sh.P.S.Sarna, Counsel for complainant.

OPs exparte.

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

         The facts in issue are that the complainant purchased one mobile phone A091-Micromax on 24.3.2015 from OP NO.3 for an amount of Rs.4500/- (Ann.C-1) and it was carrying one year warranty. It is averred that the mobile set started giving problem from the very beginning such as poor audio, volume problem, cracking voice, hearing problem and camera not working. So the mobile set was taken to OP No.4, who changed its speaker twice, but still the same problem re-occurred after few days of repair.  It is also averred that subsequent to that, the complainant approached the OPs a number of times and made request, but the Opposite Parties have failed to rectify the faults in the mobile phone.  It is submitted that the complainant requested the OPs to replace the mobile phone being under warranty, but they did nothing.  Thereafter, a legal notice was sent to the OPs, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above acts of the OPs as deficiency in service.

 

2]       The OP NO.1 after putting in appearance through Sh.Amandeep Singh, Advocate and taking several adjournments, neither filed reply/evidence nor appeared on 11.1.2017, hence was proceeded exparte vide order dated 11.1.2017.

         The OPs NO.2 to 4 did not turn up despite service of notice through regd. post, hence they were proceeded exparte vide order dated 20.5.2016.

 

3]       Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant and have carefully examined the facts and pleadings along with entire evidence on record.

 

5]       The complainant after purchase of mobile telephone on 24.3.2015 from OP No.3, constantly suffered problems and unable to use the telephone due to defects in it.  He has taken up the matter with OPs vide his e-mail message dated 2.5.2015 (Ann.C-3), legal notice dated 15.6.2015 (Ann.C-4) and also with service centre OP NO.4 on 22.5.2015 (Ann.C-2) for repair of his mobile phone, which was within warranty, but could not get positive response.

 

6]       The OPs despite service of notice in this complaint, did not come up with any reply or evidence in rebuttal to the contentions raised by the complainant, which is contemptuous. 

 

7]       The consumer has a right to fair value, good quality of a good, which he purchased for his use.  The mobile phone in question purchased by the complainant was defective from the date of its purchase, which impaired its utility/effectiveness for the purpose for which it was purchased by the complainant.  The OPs did not pay heed to the problems suffered by the complainant and taken no effective steps to repair the mobile phone to the full satisfaction of the complainant.

 

8]       The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 gives a purchase the right to receive goods that are of good quality, in good working order and free from all defects and will be usable for a reasonable period of time to its optimum utility.

9]       There is apparent deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OPs in the present case.  The complainant in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this matter, is entitled for relief as claimed for.

 

10]      Keeping in view the above findings, the complaint is allowed with directions to the OPs to jointly & severally replace the mobile phone in question of the complainant with new one, within a period of thirty days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. 

         In case of failure to comply within the stipulated period, the OPs shall also pay compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/-.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

8^th February, 2017                        Sd/- 

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER