DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.497 of 23.12.2016

                                      Decided on:    5.4.2017

Dr.Satya Bir Singh son of Late Sh.Madan Singh, aged 48 yrs, resident of #63, Salaria Vihar, AWHOL Complex, Urban Estate-1, Patiala 147002. (9872211695)

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Micromax House 90B, Sector-18, Gurgaon-122015 Tel: +91-124-4811000.

2.       Sixer Deal INC SY NOS 241-244, 275-284, PENJERIA(V) Kottur(M), Mahabub Nagar, Distt Hydrabad 509228, Telangana, India.

3.       M/s Mobile Tech, B!-Ranjit Plaza, Adjoining Hotel Jivan Plaza, Bhupindra Road, Patiala-147001 Punjab.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                       Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                       Dr.Satyabir Singh, complainant in person.

                                      Opposite parties ex-parte.

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM  GUPTA,  MEMBER

1. The complainant purchased one mobile phone make Micromax Canvas        A 120 from authorized retailer i.e. Amazon.in on 31.12.2015 for an amount of Rs.6110/-.It is averred that from the very first day of the said purchase, the complainant was facing certain problems with the display of the mobile phone. After a few months, the phone memory got completely exhausted and various other problems also cropped up in the said mobile phone. The complainant approached the service centre of the company i.e. OP no.3 and requested the technician of OP no.3 to rectify the defect in the mobile phone but the technician of OP no.3 returned the mobile phone to the complainant  and demanded a sum of Rs.600/- for the repair of the mobile phone in question. When the complainant told OP no.3 that the mobile phone was within warranty, the technician of OP no.3 told the complainant to contact the head office of the company at Gurgaon, Accordingly, the complainant contacted OP no.1 vide letter dated 16.5.2016 and informed about the complete details of the problems faced by the complainant but Op no.1 failed to give any response to the same. Thereafter the complainant sent reminders on 20.5.2016,27.5.2016 and 14.6.2016 but to no use. On 3.9.2016, the complainant got served a legal notice to the OPs. The complainant underwent a lot of harassment at the hands of the OPs and ultimately he approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986.
2. On notice, OPs no.1&2 refused to accept the notice whereas OP no.3 failed to appear despite service and thus all the OPs were proceeded against ex-parte.
3. In support of his case , the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Ex.C1 to C15 and closed the evidence.
4. The complainant filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the complainant in person and have also gone through the evidence on record.
5. Ex.C3 is the copy of the invoice whereby the complainant purchased one mobile phone from the authorized retailer i.e. Amazon.in on 31.12.2015. Ex.C5 to Ex.C15 are the reminders as well as legal notice sent by the complainant to the OPs regarding problem in the Micromax Canvas mobile phone.Inspite of sending reminders again and again, OPs failed to give any reply to the same. As the default occurred in the said mobile phone during warranty period and failure on the part of the OPs to rectify the problem amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.Moreover, failure on the part of the OPs to contest the claim of the complainant shows the indifferent attitude of the OPs to redress the grievance of the complainant.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OPs no.1&3 to replace the mobile phone of the complainant with a new one of the same make with requisite warranty and if that is not possible to refund an amount of Rs.6110/- the same being the price of the mobile phone. OPs No.1&3 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.4000/-as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs No.1&3  within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:5.4.2017         

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER