Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/1

Ravinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Morinda Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Siddharth Sharma

15 May 2019

ORDER

THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. : 01 of 10.01.2019

                                 Date of decision                    :    15.05.2019

 

Ravinder Singh, son of Sh. Shanti Sarup, aged about 58 years, resident of Village Anandpur Sahib, Tehsil Basi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

 

1. Morinda Enterprises through its proprietor, Near OBC Bank, Opposite Bus Stand Morinda,  District Rupnagar. 
2. Micromax Informatics Limited, 288-A, Udyog Vihar Phase IV, Gurugram 122015.
3. Micromax Mobile Service Centre, SCF 21, Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar  

 

   ....Opposite Parties

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh.Sidharath Sharma, Adv. counsel for complainant  

O.P. No. 1 exparte  

          Sh. Suresh Kumar, authorized representative of OP No.2

          Sh. Suresh Kumar, O.P. No.3 in person

 

                                           ORDER

              CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

 

1. Sh. Ravinder Singh, son of Sh. Shanti Sarup, aged about 58 years, resident of Village Anandpur Sahib, Tehsil Basi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the O.Ps. to replace the mobile set in question or to refund the amount of the mobile set in question along with interest @ 18% per annum; to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation; to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs; any other relief which this Hon'ble Forum may deem fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 
2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that on 06.01.2018, the  complainant had purchased a Micromax Bharat 2 from OP No.1, which had a guarantee period of one year and a bill was issued to the complainant. From the very beginning of its purchase, the mobile set in question was getting switched off automatically. Immediately, the complainant had approached O.P. No.1 regarding the said problem, then OP No.1 asked him to approach to O.P. No.3 as it was a manufacturing defect and the mobile in question was within warranty period.  On 12.11.2018, the complainant approached O.P. No.3  and gave the mobile set in question to it. The O.P. no.3 had returned the mobile set in question without solving the problem and he said that he is unable to solve the problem. He again approached OP No.1 to repair or replace the mobile set in question but the O.P. No.1 did not pay any heed to his request. Hence, this complaint. 
3. On notice, the O.Ps. No. 2 & 3 appeared and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the answering O.P is a company of international repute and is committed to provide products of international standards to its customers.; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that no loss, whatsoever has ever caused to the complainant; that there is no defect/manufacturing defect in the mobile set in question qua the answering O.Ps; that the complainant even failed to produce the mobile set in question at the time of filing present complaint for due inspection by this Hon'ble Forum. On merits, the answering O.Ps. have denied all the allegations leveled by the complainant and prayed for dismissal the complaint with costs. 
4. On being put to the notice, none appeared on behalf of O.P. No.1, accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.03.2019.     
5. On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. The authorized representative of O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.3 has tendered duly sworn affidavit of O.P. No.3 as Ex.OP2/A along with documents Ex.OP2/B to Ex.OP2/D and closed the evidence.  

6.    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

7.    The complainant has sought the relief on the ground that the non functioning of the mobile set was purchased vide invoice No.1233 dated 6.1.2018.  It is alleged in the complaint that in the month of November 2018. He approached the O.P. No.1 who advised the complainant to approach the O.Ps. But with no result. Lastly prayed to replace the old set with new one or to refund the sale price.

8.  On behalf of O.Ps. Sh. Suresh Kumar, appeared and is defending the case.

9.    Complainant in support of his claim relied upon the purchase bill Ex.C1 then legal notice. Sale purchase of the mobile set is not denied and OP No.3 has given the brief reply that reply filed on behalf of O.P. No.2 be read as his reply.

10.  Admittedly, the purchase set is within warranty and reported the defect in the month of November 2018. It is also admitted by the O.Ps. that due to defect complainant approached to O.Ps. But O.Ps. neither in reply nor in evidence placed any document qua the repair of the mobile set in question. However, relied upon warranty terms and condition, copy of which is Ex.OP2/B then the photographs of the camera through which alleged that mobile set was damaged due to the negligence of the complainant. But not placed on file the indent/Job card. After appreciating the totality of the documents and the arguments advanced, the purchased set which is not functioning is within warranty and no defect is pointed out by the O.Ps. If the mobile set was checked then why indent/Job card issued. So the complainant remains successful in proving deficiency on the part of O.Ps. Hence, the complaint deserves to be allowed.

11.  In the light of discussion made above, the complaints stands allowed with the directions to the O.Ps. to repair the mobile set in question. Complainant is also directed that on receipt of the certified copy of this order, he approached to the O.P. No.1, who further contact with the O.Ps. No.2 & 3 for the necessary repair within one month from the receipt of the mobile set in question.  In case the O.Ps. fail to remove the defect then the complainant will be entitled to receive Rs.4000/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of purchase of the mobile set in question till its realization with cost of Rs.2000/-.

 12.  The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.          

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.15.05.2019                           PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                               (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                   MEMBER