BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.16 of 2015

Date of Instt. 16.01.2015

Date of Decision :04.05.2015

Vikas Sharma aged about 26 years son of Susharma Kumar R/o H.no.55, Himachal Avenue, Near GNDU Campur, Ladhwali, Jalandar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Mobile House, EK-231/1, Old Division No.3 Market, Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar.

2. M/s Gopal Service Centre, Silvar Palaza Mall, Sodal Road, Near Sanjog Palace, Jalandhar.

3. Micromax House, 90B Sector-18, Gurgaon-122015.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Varun Malhotra Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Manuj Aggarwal Adv., counsel for OP No.3.

Opposite parties No.1 & 2 exparte.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased Micromax Mobile A-114, bearing IMEI No.911343501270617, from opposite party No.1 on 19.1.2014 amounting to Rs.11000/-. On 18.7.2014 the complainant faced charging problem, network problem and memory card not connected with his mobile. The complainant regarding this, visited the authorized service centre i.e opposite party No.2 and then the complainant explained this problem, which he faced in his mobile. Thereafter service engineer of opposite party No.2 thoroughly checked the above said mobile and told the complainant that there is minor water damage problem in the mobile handset and told to the complainant that his handset is not in warranty and demanded Rs.3500/- from the complainant and assured that the handset will be repaired. The complainant gave Rs.3500/- after the assurance of opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 gave job sheet to the complainant regarding this. Thereafter complainant many times approached to the opposite party No.2 but opposite party No.2 played delaying technique and the matter on one pretext to another. The opposite party No.2 neither delivered the handset of the complainant nor they returned the amount of Rs.3500/- till today. On such like averments the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile handset i.e Rs.11,000/- alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 and 2 did not appear and as such they were proceeded against exparte. However, on behalf of opposite party No.3, Sh.Manuj Aggarwal Advocate appeared and filed memo of appearance on 20.2.2015 but did not file any written reply inspite of number of opportunities afforded to him for this purpose. Consequently, opposite party No.3 was debarred from filing written reply.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the 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 learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite party No.3.

5. The complainant purchased the handset in question for Rs.11,000/- vide retail invoice Ex.C1 dated 19.1.2014 from opposite party No.1. The mobile handset of the complainant developed certain defect and he gave the same to service centre i.e opposite party No.2 vide job sheet Ex.C2. As per job sheet, the set was water damaged. So in case of physical damage, the warranty is not applicable. However, it is in the complaint as well as affidavit Ex.CA of the complainant that he gave Rs.3500/- to opposite party No.2 for repair of the handset. It is further in his affidavit that despite so many visits of opposite party No.2 they have neither returned the amount of Rs.3500/- nor delivered the handset to him. The opposite party No.2 has not come present to contest the claim of the complainant or to deny his allegations. However, opposite party No.3 appeared through counsel but did not file any written reply rebutting the allegations of the complainant. So from unrebutted evidence adduced by the complainant, his version stand proved.

6. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.2 and 3 are directed either to deliver the fully repaired handset to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order or to return him Rs.3500/- alongwith the handset in un-repaired condition or to give him new mobile handset of the same make and model and in case same make and model of the mobile handset is not available then to refund its price to him. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses from opposite parties No.2 and 3. 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

04.05.2015 Member Member President