BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.73 of 2016
Date of Instt. 09.02.2016
Date of Decision :13.12.2016
Pawan Kumar age about 38 years son of Dev Raj R/o B-I, 743, Ram Nagar, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
Mobile House, E-231/1, Old Division No.3 Market, Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar.
Sehaj Tele Care, First Floor, Gulati Complex, Near DLF Mall, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar.
Micromax House, 90B Sector 18- Gurgaon, Pin-122015.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. T. K. Badhan, Adv., counsel for complainant.
Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 Exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint filed by complainant, wherein alleged that the opposite party No.1 is dealing in selling new mobiles and the complainant is consumer as per provisions provided under Consumer Protection Act. The Opposite Party No.3 is a head office of Micromax, who is dealing to manufacture and marketing the new mobiles of the Micromax Company. The complainant had purchased a new phone of Micromax Mobile Model MICROMAX MOBILE UNITE2 bearing IME number 911422351089168. The complainant has paid Rs.5650/- to opposite party No.1 in lieu of above said purchase of new mobile. Opposite party No.1 have issued a bill for the purchase of new mobile to the complainant vide dated 12.05.2015 with invoice No.876. It is pertinent to mention here that the mobile was under warranty for one year from the date of purchase.
2. That the complainant approached to the service station i.e. opposite party No.2 for repairing the fault caused in the new mobile. The opposite party No.2 has given job sheet dated 28.09.2015 to the complainant and retained the new mobile with itself. The complainant visited variously to the service centre of opposite party No.2 but the officials of opposite party No.2 not replied appropriately. The mobile is under warranty and till date has not been repaired by the service agency of opposite party No.2 and as such complainant has suffered loss due to the inadequate service of opposite parties and also suffered tension and agony due to inconvenience caused by service agency of opposite parties and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties which gave rise to file the present complaint with a prayer that the complaint may be accepted and opposite parties may be directed to repay the price of mobile set Rs. 5650/- with interest @24% per annum and further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties but despite service, opposite party No. 1 to 3 did not come present and ultimately, opposite party No.1 to 3 were proceeded against exparte.
4. In order to prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C2 and then closed his evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant in person and also scanned the file very minutely.
6. After taking into consideration, the arguments of the complainant as well as from the pleading and documents, it reveals that the complainant has purchased a mobile phone from opposite party No.1 who is dealing to sell Micromax Telephone Set and in order to prove that the complainant purchased the mobile set, the complainant has proved on the file invoice/bill Ex.C1 which is dated 12.05.2015 for amounting to Rs.5650/- but the said mobile phone started giving problem within the warranty period of one year and accordingly, the complainant approached to the opposite party service centre who took the mobile set and issued job sheet dated 28.09.2015 the copy of the same is Ex.C2 but till today, the mobile set has not been repaired and even not returned to the complainant and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. We find that the opposite parties have required to repair the mobile phone as soon as possible within a few days but the opposite party has not repaired the mobile phone for so many months and even the same is not returned to the complainant which is proved to be negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for that the complainant is entitled to get the compensation from the opposite parties.
7. In the light of above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and opposite parties are directed to repair the mobile set of the complainant and returned the same to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of order and further opposite parties are directed to pay compensation for harassment and mental agony to the tune of Rs.5000/- and further directed to pay the litigation expenses of Rs.1500/-. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
13.12.2016 Member President
