DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 260/2014
Date of Institution : 27.11.2014
Date of Decision : 16.07.2015
Dr. Gurjinder Pal Singh aged about 30 years son of Sh. Balvir Singh Resident of Baba Deep Singh Nagar, St. No. 2, Handiaya Road, Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s B. G Electricals, Opposite Main Post Office, Barnala.
2. M/s Vandana Trading Co. Sadar Bazar Near Railway Station, Barnala through its partner/prop/authorized signatory.
3. Customer Care Officer, Micromax Informatics Ltd., 90 B, Sector 18, Gurgaon-122015.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Ashok Kumar Palta counsel for the complainant with complainant.
Opposite parties No. 1 and 2 exparte
Sh. V.S. Duggal counsel for opposite party No. 3.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Dr. Gurjinder Pal Singh has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) against M/s B. G. Electricals opposite party No. 1, M/s Vandana Trading Company opposite party No. 2 and Customer Care Officer, Micromax Informatics Ltd. opposite party No. 3 (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainant purchased one mobile phone set Micromax Canvas Magnus bearing IMEI No. 911334851416223 for Rs. 13,500/- from opposite party No. 1, vide invoice No. 493 dated 5.2.2014. The said mobile started giving problems, therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint with the opposite party No. 1. However, opposite party No. 1 referred the said complaint to opposite party No. 2 an authorized service centre of Micromax at Barnala therefore, the said set was deposited with the opposite party No. 2 on 27.8.2014. But the opposite party No. 2 told that the job sheet was not available at that time and therefore, told to collect the job sheet or mobile set if repaired after two or three days. Thereafter, the complainant received a SMS on his other mobile phone No. 98034-10951 informing that the mobile set was repaired and to collect the same on 27.8.2014, 28.8.2014 and again on 29.8.2014. When complainant visited the premises of opposite party No. 2 on 30.9.2014, opposite party No. 2 delivered the job sheet bearing No. 9033701411921220 dated 3.9.2014 and told that the mobile set has not been repaired till then and assured that the mobile set be repaired within two or three days.
3. On 8.9.2014, complainant reached the premises of opposite party No. 2 and inquired about his mobile phone but opposite party No. 2 told that his set had some fault till now and advised to collect the same on the next day i.e. 9.9.2014. Again the complainant visited on 9.9.014 but the opposite party No. 2 did not give satisfactory reply. Then the complainant lodged a complaint with head office of the company at phone No. 18605008286 and was given complaint No. MMX0810142620. Thereafter, the complainant has not received any positive response from the company or service centre. Thereafter, the complainant lodged complaint to e-mail of the company at
1) To replace the mobile set with new one or refund the amount of Rs. 13,500/- alongwith an unconditional apology.
2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation due to physical and mental pain.
3) To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 11,000/-.
4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 were duly served but they did not appear despite their service, therefore, they were proceeded exparte. Opposite party No. 3 has appeared through their counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections, firstly that the present complaint is a gross abuse of process of law and secondly it is filed with the motive to harass the opposite parties and the present complaint is not maintainable. That the complainant is not a consumer and complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.
5. On merits, they have denied for want of knowledge that the complainant approached their authorized service centre. Even, the complainant has not mentioned any defect in the mobile set for which he deposited the handset with the authorized service centre and it is contradictory that on the very same day he approached the opposite party No. 2 to collect the handset. Even, the complainant has not mentioned any specific date and job sheet number when he approached the authorized service centre and therefore, the allegations of the complainant are alleged to be baseless. The opposite party No. 3 has also denied the other allegations and finally prayed for the dismissal of this complaint.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of e-mail dated 24.12.2014 Ex.C-2, copy of legal notice Ex.C-3, postal receipts Ex.C-4, copy of invoice dated 5.2.2014 Ex.C-5, copy of job sheet Ex.C-6, copy of e-mail Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.
7. On the other hand the opposite party No. 3 has not led any evidence despite ample opportunities given to them and on 22.6.2015 the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 made a statement that opposite party No. 3 company is ready to replace the mobile set of the complainant.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through all the record on the file carefully.
9. In order to prove his case the complainant has tendered into evidence his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1 wherein he has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint. Ex.C-2 is the e-mail sent by the complainant to the opposite parties regarding deposit of his mobile with the service centre of opposite party No. 3 and lodging the complaint. Ex.C-3 is the legal notice served by the complainant through his counsel stating the same version as mentioned in the complaint to all the three opposite parties. Ex.C-4 is the postal receipts of sending the legal notice to the opposite parties. Ex.C-5 is the invoice No. 493 dated 5.2.2014 showing the purchase of mobile set for Rs. 13,500/- from the opposite party No. 1. Ex.C-6 is the job sheet issued by the authorized service centre of opposite party No. 3 regarding the deposit of the said mobile on 3.9.2014. Ex.C-7 is the e-mail sent to the company requesting for returning of the handset.
10. On the other hand the opposite party No. 1 from whom the handset was purchased failed to turn up despite his service. Similarly, opposite party No. 2 who is authorized service centre of Micromax at Barnala did not care to contest the case for the reasons best known to them. The job card was duly issued by them and they are the best source to tell the defect of the mobile, whether it is repairable or not. However, the best evidence which was in their possession was withheld by them. Therefore, adverse inference can be drawn against them.
11. It is also very strange that the opposite party No. 3 who was served and filed written version but in the written statement they have not taken any specific stand to contest the case rather the plea taken by them that the complainant has not approached their authorized service centre is against the record. Even, the opposite party No. 3 has not dared to rebut the affidavit of the complainant by placing on record any affidavit of the authorized agent or the Manager. Thus evidence produced by the complainant is un-rebutted. Facing this situation the opposite party No. 3 suffered statement to replace the mobile set of the complainant at the time of arguments.
12. As a result of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has succeeded in proving that the opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in service. Therefore, the present complaint is accepted and the opposite parties are directed to replace the handset of the complainant with new one or refund the amount of Rs. 13,500/- as the price of the mobile set. As the mobile set was in possession of the opposite party No. 2 for the last about more than 10 months and the complainant has suffered harassment at the hands of the opposite parties, therefore, the opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation and Rs. 2,100/- as litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order failing which the complainant is also entitled to the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the deposit of the mobile set till realization. All the parties are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
16th Day of July, 2015
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandana Sidhu)
Member
