Haryana

Ambala

CC/268/2013

ABHISHEK JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

MICROMEX - Opp.Party(s)

VIVEK JAIN

28 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

             Complaint Case No.      : 268 of 2013

 Date of Institution         : 11.10.2013

             Date of Decision            : 28.09.2015

Abhishek Jain s/o Sh. Jawahar Lal Jain, R/o H.No.620-A/51, Shalimar Colony, Ambala City.                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ……Complainant.

Versus

1.       Micromax Informatix Ltd. through its M.D./C.E.O., 21/14A, Phase II, Naraina, Industrial Area, Delhi 110028.

2.       Goyal Telecom Service through its Proprietor, Shop No.17, Shopping Complex, Sector-7,Urban Estate, Ambala City.

3.       M/s Service City through its Proprietor, Shop No.167/17 (FF) Part-A, Near Vijay Rttan Chowk, Ambala Cantt.                                              

……Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:    SH. A.K. SARDANA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.                                     

Present:       Sh. Vivek Jain, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh. Sushil Kumar, Adv. for OP No.2.

                   Ops No.1 & 3 exparte.

ORDER.

                    Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased a Mobile of Micromax Model Canvas II A-110, having IMEI No.911239258924051 & 911239259026054, colour black from  OP No.2 on 19.04.2013 vide bill No.3182 in a sum of Rs.11,000/- and  the said mobile phone started hanging problem from the very beginning of its use and the applications of the same were also not working properly. The complainant made several oral complaints to OP No.2 but of no avail and ultimately the mobile phone became dead.  On 19.06.2013, the mobile phone was handed over to the OP No.3 i.e. Service Centre of OP No.1 vide job sheet *N050113-0813-4147365* where it was told that the mobile phone had a major manufacturing problem and it cannot be repaired at service centre and this phone has to be sent to the company for repair. It has been further submitted by the complainant that after a period of 20 days, he received a call from the Service Centre for collecting the mobile set in question since the same is ready  but  on reaching the OP No.3 Service Centre,  he shocked to see the phone since the same was in damaged condition as its steel rib was badly damaged. So, the complainant refused to accept the same and thereafter got served a legal notice dated 29.07.2013 upon the  Ops and after  receipt of notice, OP No.3 handed over the same to complainant on 13.08.2013 after affixing the rib & rectifying the defects etc. but the said set again became dead on 25.08.2013 as the Display Touch Screen of the set left working and thus the same was again handed over to OP No.3 vide job sheet No.*N050113-0813-5141123* for rectifying the defects as mentioned in the job sheet but they did not bother to rectify it.   As such, a legal notice dated 12.09.2013 was again  served upon the Ops but of no use as the only motive of Ops was to get monetary benefits by making false assurances which is an unfair trade practice on the part of Ops. Hence, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

2.                Upon notice, Ops No. 1 & 3 appeared through counsel and during the course of proceedings, representative of Op No.3  appeared before the Forum and tendered a statement on 21.03.2014 that he has brought the mobile set in the Forum after rectification of its defects for handing over the same to complainant but the complainant refused to accept the same as steel rib of the mobile was in broken condition and thus OP No.3 retained the same. Counsel for complainant further  stated that set in dispute was deposited with OP No.3 in good condition on 29.08.2013 and there was no any scratch on it. Corroborating the statement of OP No.3, Ops No.1 & 3 also filed written statement through counsel submitting that there is no deficiency in service on their part and the mobile set of complainant has been repaired under warranty and is functioning properly.

                   OP No.2 also appeared through counsel and filed its written statement raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint, suppression of material facts and mis-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, purchase of the mobile set was admitted but it was urged that in case of any defect in the mobile, mobile phone was to be repaired by OP No.3 Service Centre.  Rest of the contents of complaint were denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs was made.  

3.                In evidence, the counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-17 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for Op No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Ankur Goyal, proprietor OP No.2 as Annexure RX and OP’s No. 1& 3 did not bother to tender any evidence rather opted not to appear in the proceedings of the case as such, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.08.2015.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record very minutely. At the very outset, it is an admitted fact on record that complainant purchased the mobile set of Micromax company from Op No.2 which became defective within its warranty period. The main grouse of the complainant  is that the mobile set  was handed over to OP No.3 Service Centre of OP No.1 as per job sheet (Annexure C-13) on 29.08.2013 having symptom of Display Touch Screen Not Working but the same was not rectified inspite of various visits & legal notice  served upon the Ops rather its steel rib was also broken which  is a deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  Further the conduct of Ops No.1 & 3 also appears deficient from the perusal of statement of representative of OP No.3 tendered before the Forum on 21.03.2014 to the effect that the mobile set of the complainant was got deposited with them on 29.08.2013 for removing its defects and they brought the same before the Forum for handing over it to complainant on 21.03.2014, meaning thereby that the mobile phone was retained by the Ops for about 7 months and during the said period they failed to return the same to the complainant after removing the defects of the mobile set, which is admittedly a deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  Now-a-days mobile set is a basic necessity of lifestyle and no one can remain even a day without mobile set and thus the complainant might have purchased a new mobile set and that is why, he refused to accept the steel rib broken mobile set rather requested for return of price of mobile set in question instead of getting the replacement of the disputed mobile. Accordingly, in these circumstances referred above, we have no option except to allow the present complaint and thus we directs the Ops No.1 & 3 to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

1. To return the price of mobile set in question to the complainant to the tune of Rs.11000/- alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment.
3. Also to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation costs including Advocate’s fee.

                        Further the award in question/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs No. 1 & 3 within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts  shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default.  Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

 

Announced: 28.09.2015                                                                                              

                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                            (A.K. SARDANA)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                   MEMBER