DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 72 of 2.3.2017
Decided on: 2.8.2017
Hardeep Kumar aged about 29 years son of Sh.Ramesh Kumar, resident of H.No.234, Nabha Road, Rauni, District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Micromax Care, Bhupindra Road, 22 No.Phatak, Near Jiwan Plaza Hotel, Patiala.
2. M/s Harjeet Bros., Authorized dealer of Micromax Mobile, Dharampura Bazar, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Hardeep Kumar,complainant in person.
Sh.Vipan Sharma,Adv.counsel for OP no.1.
Opposite party No.2 ex-parte.
ORDER
SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER
- The complainant purchased one Micromax mobile phone ,make E-455, bearing IMEI No.911438702521089 from Op no.2 for an amount of Rs.9250/- on 29.1.2016. It is averred that as there was problem in the camera of the mobile phone, the complainant brought the problem into the notice of OP no.2 on 20.1.2017, who told the complainant to approach Op no.1 i.e. the authorized service centre of the company. The complainant got deposited the mobile phone with Op no.1 on 20.1.2017.Thereafter, the complainant approached Op no.1 time and again but to no use. OP no.1 has neither rectified the problem nor returned the mobile phone to the complainant. Since 20.1.2017, the mobile phone in question is lying with Op no.1 .As the defect occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period, OP No.1 was bound to rectify the same and failure to do so amounted to deficiency in service on its part. The complainant underwent a lot of physical and mental 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.
- On notice, OP no.2 failed to appear despite service and was thus proceeded against ex-parte, whereas OP no.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. In its reply, Op no.1 has completely denied all the allegations made in the complaint and it prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C2 and closed the evidence.
- On behalf of OP no.1 no evidence has been lead and the same was closed by order.
- We have heard the complainant, the ld.counsel for OP no.1 and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone from Op no.2 on 29.1.2016.Ex.C2 is the job sheet whereby the complainant got the mobile phone deposited with Op no.1 on 20.1.2017.The complainant approached OP no.1 time and again but to no use. Since mobile phone is a basic necessity, the complainant was forced to purchase a new mobile phone . Since 20.1.2017, the mobile phone has been lying with Op No.1.As the defect occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period, OP no.1 was bound to rectify the same which it failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on its part.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant against OP no.1 only and directed it to replace the mobile phone of the complainant with a new one of the same make and if that is not possible to refund the amount of Rs.9250/-i.e. the price of the mobile phone. OP no.1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-as compensation for the harassment underwent by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:2.8.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
