BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.44 of 2015

Date of Instt. 10.02.2015

Date of Decision :31.03.2015

Avneesh Arora, aged about 40 years son of Sh.O.P Arora resident of H.No.22, New Harbans Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Mobile House, Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar through its Prop/Partner/Authorized Representative.

2. M/s Gopal Telecom, EH-198, Shop No.2(GF), Civil Lines, Near Gujarat Palace, Jalandhar-144001.

3. Micromax Informatic Ltd, 21/14A, Phase-II, Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi-110028 through its Managing Director/Authorized Representative. .

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Opposite parties exparte.

Order

Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased a mobile phone make Micromax Mobile A96 bearing IMEI No.911353351426417 for Rs.8000/- from opposite party No.1 vide invoice No.7771 dated 15.5.2014. One year warranty was given for above said mobile phone at the time of sale of above said mobile handset. The complainant purchased the above said mobile handset from opposite party No.1. After six months from the date of purchase i.e within warranty period, the display of the above said mobile phone became out of order/shaking. The complainant brought the above defect into the notice of opposite party No.1 who directed the complainant to approach their services centre/opposite party No.2. On 14.11.2014, the complainant went to opposite party No.1 (Opposite party No.2?)and handed over the defective mobile handset who kept it with them for repair and issued a service job sheet dated 14.11.2014 to complainant and told the complainant to collect it after one month. After one month when the complainant went to take the set from opposite party No.2, they returned the handset to complainant saying that the handset has been repaired but when the complainant checked, the defect was same as before. The complainant again handed over the defective mobile to opposite party No.2 who told the complainant to take the mobile after next one month but when after one month the complainant went to take the mobile phone, the opposite party No.2 told the complainant that they are unable to remove the defect of display shaking due to some major fault and further advised the complainant to contact their Punjab head Mr.Rahul. But when contacted Mr.Rahul, the Punjab Head, he told the complainant that he would try his best to get remove the defect or would replace it at the earliest. But neither he nor any other person of the company or service centre replaced the handset nor took any interest to repair or remove the defect till date. The complainant requested the opposite party No.2 either to replace the mobile phone or repair it but the opposite party No.2 refused saying that the said mobile handset can neither be repaired nor can be replaced. Again and again the complainant visited the opposite party No.2 to get repaired/replaced the said mobile handset but every time the opposite party No.2 clearly refused to repair or replace the said defective mobile handset. Aggrieved with the attitude and behaviour of opposite party No.2, the complainant tried his best to bring his grievances into the notice of opposite party No.3 through phone but they ignored to attend the telephonic call of the complainant. The complainant has been deprived off the use of said mobile handset. Till date the said defective mobile handset is lying with opposite party No.2 which they have neither repaired nor replaced despite several visits and so many requests of complainant. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to return the price of the mobile handset alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, the opposite parties did not appear inspite of services and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed evidence.

4. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person.

5. The complainant purchased the mobile handset in question from opposite party No.1 vide retail invoice dated 15.5.2014 Ex.C1 for Rs.8000/-. According to the complainant, after six months from the date of purchase i.e during warranty period, the mobile phone became out of order and he brought defect into the notice of opposite party No.1 who directed him to approach the service centre i.e opposite party No.2. Further according to complainant, he approached opposite party No.2 on 14.11.2014 and handed over the defective mobile handset to it for repair and opposite party No.2 issued job sheet dated 14.11.2014 Ex.C2. Further according to complainant, when he received back the handset from opposite party No.2, the opposite party No.2 told him that handset has been repaired, when he checked the handset, the defect was there as before and he handed over the mobile hand to opposite party No.2 again. It is alleged that till date the defective mobile handset is lying with opposite party No.2 which has neither been repaired nor replace despite several visits and requests of the complainant. In support of his version, the complainant has filed his affidavit Ex.CA. The opposite parties have not come present to contest the version of the complainant. So it appears that they have nothing to say in the matter. We do not find any convincing reason to disbelieve ubrebutted version of the complainant.

6. Consequently, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.2 and 3 are directed either to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one of the same make and model or in the alternative to refund the price to him. The complainant is awarded Rs.2000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

31.03.2015 Member Member President