Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/82/2016

Aryan Sharma S/o Rakesh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Microsoft Priority Reseller - Opp.Party(s)

Rakesh Sharma

16 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                        Complaint No.82 of 2016.

                                                                                        Date of institution:10.03.2016.

                                                                                        Date of decision: 16.12.2016

Aryan Sharma aged about 22 years son of Shri Rakesh Sharma, Advocate, resident of House No. 232, Jain Nagar Extn. Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                             …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Microsoft Priority Reseller, Near Shankar Bakers, Bhatia Building, Jagadhri Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Prop.
2. Pristine Enamor, 593, Santpura Gurudwara, Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor.
3. Microsoft India Pvt. Ltd. 10^th Floor, Town B & C, DLF Building No.5 (Epitome) DLF, Cyber City DLF, Phase-III, Gurgaon through its Managing Director.                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                              …Respondents.

Before:             SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                          SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.    

               Respondent No.1 given up.  

               Respondents No. 2 & 3 already ex-parte.

                

ORDER

 

1.                       Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased one mobile set Microsoft Lumia 430 for a sum of Rs. 5200/- vide invoice No. 3933 dated 15.07.2015 from the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as OP No.1) manufactured by Op No.3 whose service centre is OP No.2. the mobile in question was having one year warranty. In the month of November, 2015, the mobile in question become defective and on the complaint of the complainant, the defective mobile was replaced. The replaced mobile also started giving problem in hanging and head phone due to which on 21.01.2016, the complainant took the phone to OP No.2 Service Centre. The concerned official took the mobile from the complainant and took inside the room for checking but there due to mishandling, the display of the mobile was broken by that official and immediately he brought back the mobile set and started alleging that display of the mobile is broken and the service centre is not responsible. The complainant was stunned and he objected and requested for repair/replacement of the same but the official of the OP No.2 totally refused to do so. Even, the official of the OP No.2 did not bother to issue job sheet. the complainant sent a legal registered notice dated 25.01.2016 but inspite of that the OPs neither replaced the mobile set in question nor refunded the cost of mobile. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.2 & 3 failed to appear despite service, hence they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 15.07.2016 whereas Op No.1 given up vide order dated 28.10.2016 on the statement of complainant recorded separately.

4.                     In support of his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence short affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA and documents such as Photo copy of Bill No. 3933 dated 15.07.2015 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of legal notice as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of postal receipts as Annexure C-3 to C-6, Photo copy of acknowledgement as Annexure C-7 and C-8, Photocopy of postal receipt as Annexure C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     We have heard the complainant and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

6.                     From the perusal of Bill No. 3933 dated 15.07.2015, it is duly evident that the complainant purchased the mobile phone Microsoft Lumia 430 from Op No.1 manufactured by OP No.3. The only grievances of the complainant is that display of the mobile phone was broken by the officials of the service centre Op No.2 on 22.01.2016 when he visited the service centre of the Op No.2 for the problem of hanging and head phone but this version is not supported by any cogent evidence that the display of the mobile in question was damaged due to mishandling by the official of the OP No.2. The complainant purchased the mobile set in question on 15.07.2015 and the present complaint was filed on 10.03.2016 within a period of short span i.e. 9 months from the date of purchase.  The case of the complainant is duly supported by his unrebutted affidavit and copy of purchase bill dated 16.07.2015 Annexure C-1 whereas the OPs did not bother even to appear before this Forum to contest the complaint. On the other angle also now a days, mobile companies are selling their products by affixing parts of inferior quality i.e. display etc. to earn more profit. As it is evident from the facts of the present case, the display of the mobile set in question was broken during the short span of time either from the complainant or from the official of the service centre, as alleged by the complainant. Generally everyman remains conscious in regard to their products as he has invested his hard money for purchasing the product. Hence, we have no option except to partly allow the ex-parte complaint of complainant.

7.                     Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs No.2 & 3 to put the mobile set in question in working order free of costs and if the Ops No.2 & 3 are not in a position to repair the same then a lump sum amount of Rs.4500/- be refunded to the complainant subject to deposit of old mobile phone within a period of 30 days failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 16.12.2016.                    

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

 

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.