Haryana

Jind

CC/16/63

Vijendewr Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mocro Max Op1 And M/S Sonu Mobile Op2 And M/S Non Stop Mobile OP3 - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Satyawan Goyat

03 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 66 of 2016
   Date of Institution: 24.5.2016
   Date of final order: 4.8.2016

Vijender Singh aged about 35 years s/o Sh. Ranvir Singh r/o Raj Nagar, Kaithal road near ITI near Patiala Chowk, Jind. 

                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
Micromax Informatics Ltd. 21/14A, Phase-II Naraina Industrial Area Delhi-110028 through its Managing Director.
M/s Sonu Mobile shop, shop No.9 (Basement) near Bharat Cinema Jhanj gate, Batra Shopping Complex, Jind through its Proprietor.
M/s Non Stop Mobile, shop No.2 Opp. Old bus stand, Shastri Market, Jind through its Proprietor. 
                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
    Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. Satyawan Goyat Adv. for complainant.
              Opposite parties already ex-parte. 

ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased  Micromax Canvas  mobile set  for a sum of Rs.7,000/- vide  receipt No.551 dated 12.12.2015 from opposite party No.3, which is manufactured by opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 is service provider. After using some time the mobile had started 
        Vijender Singh Vs. Micromax Informatics Ltd. etc.
                     …2…    
troubling  due to not proper working and in defect of display and in audio system and power of the mobile has started failure. The complainant  approached with opposite party No.3 and told about the problem of mobile set, the opposite party No.3 asked the complainant to get remove the defect from opposite party No.2 i.e. service centre. The opposite party had taken the mobile set and told that it will take about one month for its repair and he issued the job sheet dated 3.3.2016.  Thereafter, the complainant visited the service center of opposite party No.2 several times  for removing the defect of the mobile set but the  opposite party No.2 did not remove the defects of the mobile set of the complainant nor returned back the mobile set. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to  replace the defective  mobile with new one or to pay the cost of mobile i.e. Rs.7,000/- as well as to pay a  sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony  to the complainant. 
2.    The opposite parties were proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 12.7.2016. 
3.    In   ex-parte evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Annexure C-1, copy of job sheet Annexure C-2 and copy of   cash memo Annexure C-3 and closed the evidence. 
4.    We have heard Ld. counsel of complainant and also perused the record placed on file. Ld. counsel for complainant argued that  after using some time the mobile  of complainant had become defective and   
        Vijender Singh Vs. Micromax Informatics Ltd. etc.
                     …3…    
there is  defect of display, in audio system and power of the mobile has started failure. It is further argued that complainant requested several times to the opposite parties to remove the defect of mobile set but the opposite parties have not removed the defect of the mobile set or not return back the mobile of the complainant and prayed to allow the complaint. The opposite parties were proceeded against ex-parte. 
5.    We have gone through the record it is clear that the complainant had purchased  the mobile set  vide cash memo Annexure C-3 dated 12.12.2015 for Rs.7,000/- and mobile in question became defective and he approached to the opposite party No.2 i.e. service centre they have issued the job card vide Annexure C-2 dated 3.3.2016, it is very much clear on the job sheet problem reported by the complainant that power self test failure  but there is no report on the job sheet whether the service centre has rectified the defect of the mobile set or not . It is presumed that mobile in question became defective within warranty period.  In this regard the complainant has also filed the affidavit, the evidence  adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted because  opposite parties did not turn up to controvert the version of the complainant.
6.    In view of above discussion, we have no hesitation to allow this complaint. Hence, the complaint is allowed with cost and opposite parties are directed to  replace the mobile in question of the complainant with a new one of same model  having same price and if the same model is not available then  opposite parties will  refund the cost of mobile. The order be complianced within 30 days , failing which the opposite parties are directed pay a simple 
        Vijender Singh Vs. Micromax Informatics Ltd. etc.
                     …4…    
interest@9% p.a. from the date of  filing of the complaint i.e. 24.5.2016 till its final realization.  We assessed as Rs. 1100/-(Rs. eleven hundred only) as litigation 
expenses to the  complainant.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.
Announced on: 4.8.2016

                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    Vijender Singh Vs. Micromax Informatics Ltd. etc.
                     
Present:  Sh. Satyawan Goyat Adv. for complainant.
              Opposite parties already ex-parte. 

              Arguments heard. To come up on 4.8.2016 for orders. 
                                    President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  3.8.2016

Present:  Sh. Satyawan Goyat Adv. for complainant.
              Opposite parties already ex-parte. 

         Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                          President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  4.8.2016