Haryana

Ambala

CC/341/2018

Gautam Manocha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mottay Communications - Opp.Party(s)

Chetan Kumar Singhaal

01 Aug 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.        :  341 of  2018

                                                          Date of Institution         :  12.10.2018

                                                          Date of decision    :   01.08.2019.

 

Gautam Manocha son of Sh. Gurcharan Manocha, resident of # 575, VPO Mullana, District Ambala

  ……. Complainant.

 

 

1. Mottay Communications, Main Road, Near Bus Stand, Nahoni, District Ambala, through its proprietor Krishan Gujjar.
2. Micromax House, 90-A, Sector-18, Gurgaon 122015, through its authorized Signatory.
3. Micromax M/s Service City, Shop No. 167/17 (FF), Part-A, near Vijay Rattan Chowk, Ambala Cantt.       

 

 ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Ms.  Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member.

                   Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member

 

 

Present:       Sri. C.K. Singhaal, counsel for complainant.

                   OPs ex parte.

 

ORDER:     SH. VINOD KUMAR SHARMA, MEMBER.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to the OPs;

1. To replace the mobile phone or to pay the price of the Mobile phone i.e. 12999/- to the complainant. 
2. To pay Rs. 33,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment.
3. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as cost of litigation.
4. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

                   The brief facts of the present complaint is that the complainant had purchased a Micromax mobile phone model No. Q-450 having IMEI No. 911432550153608 vide bill No. 1198 dated 15.12.2015 from OP. No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 12999/-. After few months of the purchase, the mobile started giving problems and remained hanging for hours together. The complainant reported the problems to the Ops, but the problem was not solved by the OPs. Ultimately, the complainant asked the Ops to remove the problem or to replace the Mobile phone with new.  On 24.11.2016 the complainant handed over the mobile to the OP No. 3 and the same was given back to the complainant and then on 09.12.2016 it started giving problems again and its LCD/LED broke down.  Thereafter, various emails were exchanged between the complainant and Ops. The complainant was intimated by the Ops that the problem in the mobile phone will be resolved. On 18.2.2017 an email was received by the complainant in which it has been informed to have patience and cooperate and the problem will be resolved at the earliest.  Lastly on 23.3.2017 an email was received by the complainant in which it has been written that problem will be resolved and apologize to the inconvenience caused to the complainant, but the problem in the mobile set was not resolved. A legal notice dated 12.05.22017 was also served upon the Ops but they did not take any action in the matter. The Ops are linger on the matter on pretext or the other. Till date the Mobile phone is in the custody of OP. No. 3. Hence, the present complaint.    

2.                Upon notice, OPs failed to appear in person or through his counsel on 28.01.2019. Ultimately, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28.01.2019.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA along with documents as annexure C-1 to C-17 and closed his evidence.

4.                We have heard counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The averments made in complaint regarding defective mobile phone have been corroborated with the evidence. The complainant has also placed on record the bill invoice (Annexure C-1), Job sheets (Annexure C-2 to C-4), Emails exchanged between the complainant and OPs (Annexure C-5 to C-14) and Job sheet (Annexure C-3) in his evidence. However, the Ops have failed to remove the defects in the mobile phone of the complainant. The Ops have not contested the complaint. In this case, the OPs have proceeded against ex-parte, therefore, the contents enumerated in the complaint remained un-rebutted and thus, we have no other option except to believe the version as well as documents submitted by the complainant, which is duly supported by his affidavit and other supporting documents. Hence, we are of the view that OPs are indulged in an illegal trade practice and also deficient in providing after sale service to the complainant.

6.                     In view of above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be accepted and same is hereby allowed against the Ops and they are directed to comply with the following directions:-

(i)      To replace the faulty mobile phone with new one of the same model. If they are not in position to replace the mobile phone , then to refund the cost of mobile handset amounting Rs.12,999/-.

(ii)     To pay compensation a sum of Rs.5,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony.

(iii)    To pay Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation.

 

                   The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions jointly and severally within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on : 01.08.2019.

 

 

 (Vinod Kumar Sharma)       (Ruby Sharma)                          (Neena Sandhu)

      Member                             Member                            President