BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.275 of 2015

Date of Instt. 23.06.2015

Date of Decision :20.11.2015

Vishal Gupta aged about 40 years son of Pawan Gupta R/o H.No.124, Dilbag Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. Mobile House, Phagwara Gate, near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar through its Manager/Authorized Representative.

2. Gopal Service Centre, Shop No.-36, Silver Plaza Complex, Opp.Sanjog Palace, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Representative.

3. Micromax House, 90-B, Sector-18, Gurgaon-122.015 through its Director/Authorized Representative.

.........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: Complainant in person.

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

Opposite parties No.1 & 2 exparte.

Order

Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

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 handset model A114 from opposite party No.1 vide invoice No.65174 dated 6.3.2014 for Rs.10350/-. One year warranty was given for the above said handset. Within warranty period the above said handset became out of order. Its network dropped i.e No Call in, No Call out. The complainant handed over the above said handset to opposite party No.2 for rectification of defect. The opposite party No.2 received the handset from complainant on 14.2.2015 within warranty period and told the complainant to collect the handset after one month. When after one month complainant went to take the handset, the opposite party No.2 told the complainant that the handset is not ready, so, further told the complainant to come after one month. After two months, when complainant took the handset from the opposite party No.2, within two days, same problem arose in it. The complainant again went to opposite party No.2 and told for the same defect. The opposite party No.2 took the handset from complainant vide their job sheet dated 4.4.2015. The complainant visited the opposite party No.2 several times. But despite repeated requests and several visits made by complainant, the opposite party No.2 neither repaired the handset nor replaced it. The said handset is lying with opposite party No.2 which they have neither repaired nor replaced nor returned. On such like averments the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the handset with new one with fresh warranty or to give its price to him. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 did not appear and as such they were proceeded against exparte. However, opposite party No.3 appeared through Sh.Manuj Aggarwal Advocate but opposite party No.3 did not file any written reply inspite of several opportunities and as such it was debarred from filing any written reply.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed rebuttal evidence.

4. However, opposite party No.3 did not lead any rebuttal evidence to the evidence led by the complainant.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite party No.3.

6. The complainant purchased the mobile handset in question from opposite party No.1 for Rs.10350/- vide retail invoice dated 6.3.2014 Ex.C1. It is in the affidavit of the complainant that within warranty period the above said handset became out of order and he handed over the same to opposite party No.2 for rectification of defect and opposite party No.2 received the handset on 14.2.2015 within warranty period and told him to collect the handset after one month. It is further in his affidavit that when after one month he went to take the handset, the opposite party No.2 told him that the handset is not ready for delivery and further told him to come after one month. It is further in his affidavit that after two months, when he took the handset from the opposite party No.2, within two days, same problem created i.e arose in it and he again went to opposite party No.2 and told for the same defect and opposite party No.2 took the handset from him vide their job sheet dated 4.4.2015. Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 are above said job sheets. In job sheet dated 4.4.2015 Ex.C3 in the column of repair warranty remarks “in warranty” is mentioned. In the problem reported column “No calls in and No calls out” are mentioned. The same problem is also mentioned in earlier job sheet Ex.C2. It is further in affidavit of the complainant that opposite party has neither repaired the handset nor replaced it and said handset is lying with opposite party No.2 which they have neither repaired nor replaced or returned. The opposite party No.2 has not come present to contest the claim of the complainant. Opposite party No.3 has also not filed any written reply nor lead any evidence to rebut the evidence of the complainant.

7. So in the above circumstances, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.2 and 3 are directed either to give the mobile handset of the complainant in fully repaired condition to him within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order or in the alternative to replace it with new one of the same make and model or to refund its price to him The complainant is awarded Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. 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

20.11.2015 Member Member President