Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/657/2017

GOVIND RAINA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MICROMX - Opp.Party(s)

ANUJ DEWAN

04 Apr 2018

ORDER

             DISTRICTCONSUMERDISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

      (Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

  

Case File No.                 223/DFJ                

 Date of  Institution   08-09-2017              

 Date of Decision        16-03-2018

 

Govind Raina,

S/O Sh.Vidya Sagar,

R/O H.No.49,Lane No.2,

Karan Nagar,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                            Complainant

                    V/S

1.Micromax House,

90-B Sector No.18,Gurgaon-122015.

2.M/S Bhushan Radios{16-17},

Opp.Petrol Pump,Below Gumat,

Jammu.

3.M/S Sawhney Enterprises,

  Prem Nagar,Near Jogi Gate,

  Jammu.

                                                                                                                                            Opposite parties

CORAM

                  Khalil Choudhary  (Distt.& Sessions Judge)  President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                               Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                             Member

 

In the matter of Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

Mr.Anuj Dewan,Advocate for complainant, present .

Nemo for OPs

                                                                         ORDER.

 

                      Grievance of complainant lies in a short compass, in that, complainant said to have purchased a mobile phone E 471 of Micromax Canvas KNIGHT 2 from  OP2 for sum of Rs.10,000/-on,14-09-2016, with one year warranty copy of bill is annexed as Annexure-A. According to complainant, after couple of month, the handset had some manufacturing defects of the nature of display turning blank,heating of mobile,hanging less battery backup,resultantly,the handset used to automatically get switched off despite full charging of the battery, missing of all contact numbers in the phone memory. According to complainant, defects were manufacturing in nature and were erupted during currency of warranty,therefore,complainant said to have approached Ops but they did not give any positive response to him. Thereafter he continuously made representations to Ops,but no heed was paid by them. Allegation of complainant is that he repeatedly, approached Ops for replacement of handset,however,Ops paid no heed to the grievance of complaint and this act of Ops constitutes deficiency in service, Hence the present complaint. In the final analysis, complainant claimed refund of cost of mobile and compensation under different heads to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.

                                 Notices were sent to the OPs alongwith copies of complaint through registered covers with acknowledgment due and as per record the notices were received by the Ops, but they did not choose to represent their case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period provided under the Act, so the complainant was ordered to produce evidence by way of affidavits in supports of the complaint.

            The complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own affidavit and affidavits of Narinder Kuma and Reetika Sharma,respectively.The complainant has placed on record copy of retail invoice dated, 14-09-2016 and copy of complaint letter issued by complainant to General Manager Micromax.

                     We have perused the case file and also heard learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he had purchased handset E 471 of Micromax Canvas KNIGHT 2 from  OP2 for sum of Rs.10,000/-on,14-09-2016, from OP2,the dealer of OP1, against proper receipt for a price of Rs.10,000/-but the said handset after its purchase started showing some defects and the complainant approached to OPs for removal of the defect,but Ops paid no heed to his request. According to complainant the set was rendered useless, as the defects were not rectified by OPs and the Ops have not taken any action either in removing the defects in the mobile phone or to replace the same, thereafter, the complainant was left with no option but to approach this Forum for redressal of his grievance.

                    The complainant in his own duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavits of Narinder Kumar and Reetika Sharma,respectively,have supported the averments of the complaint. There is no evidence on record produced by other side to rebut the case of complainant. So from perusal of complaint, documentary and other evidence produced by the complainant, it appears that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case as narrated by him in the complaint. The complaint is fully supported by his own duly sworn affidavit and affidavits of Narinder Kumar and Reetika Sharma,respectively, so, in the given circumstances of the case, and in view of the evidence on record, there is no reason to disbelieve the averments of complaint.

                   This is a case of deficiency in service. The OPs despite of service of notice sent by the Forum through registered cover have not taken any action to represent the case before this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant, or to deny it, so there is no reply filed by the Ops in this complaint and there is also no evidence to rebut the case of complainant. The present case of the complainant is covered by Section 11 2(b) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1987, which provides that in a case where the OPs omits or fails to take any action to represent their case within the time given by Forum, in that situation, the Forum shall settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. Sub-clause (ii) of the Section 11, clearly provides that even where the OPs omits or fails to taken any action to represent their case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

                   Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of his grievance is allowed and opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund cost of handset,i.e.Rs.10,000/- to complainant, who shall return the mobile phone, alongwith accessories to the opposite parties. Complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.5000/-for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and litigation charges of Rs.5000/-.The Ops shall comply the order jointly and severally, within one month, from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to parties, free of costs. The complaint is accordingly, disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                         Khalil Choudhary

                                                                    (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

                                                                          President

Announced                                               District Consumer Forum

 16-03-2018                                                       Jammu.

Agreed by                                                               

      

 Ms.Vijay Angral          

 Member     

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan,

Member.