BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                Consumer Complaint No. 157 of 2017.

                                                Date of Institution:   6.11.2017.

                                                Date of Decision:  25.10.2018.

Babita wife of Shri Surender Kumar, resident of House No. 1988, Sector-13, HUDA, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

…..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. M/s GMG Communication, Authorized Super Distributor: Micromax Mobile, Radhika Complex, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani through its proprietor.

2. M/s Singh Mobile Communication, Shop No.4, 1^st Floor, City Mall, near Adarsh Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Bhiwani, authorized Service Centre of Micromax Mobiles through its proprietor.

3. M/s Micromax Informatics Ltd, 21/14A, Phase-II, Naraina, Industrial Area, Delhi-110029 through its Managing Director.

4. Micromax Informatics Ltd (Head Office), Micromax House, 90b, Gurgaon Sector-18, Gurgaon through its Managing Director.

…..Respondents.

                             Complaint under Section 12 of the

 Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr.Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Mr.Parmod Kumar, Member.

                   Hon’ble Miss Renu Chaudhary, Member.

Present:       Shri Satender Ghanghas, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Respondents already exparte.

ORDER

              Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that she purchased a mobile set Micromax Canvas-5 Mobile Model E-481 on 19.11.2016 from respondent No.1 worth Rs. 9600/- vide bill bearing No. 308 dated 19.11.2016.  That one year guarantee/warranty for all type of defects in mobile set was given by the respondents.  That after 4-5 month of its purchase, the battery of mobile set started giving heat and mobile drops network many times and problem in running internet.  That complainant went to the respondent No. 1 and told about the above said problems in the mobile set, who asked to contact the respondent No. 2 being the care centre of the company. That the complainant approached the respondent No. 2 on 15.4.2017, who repair the mobile Set and return the same by saying that the same does not occurs in future.  That after about 2-3 months, the same problem started again and another problem of hanging also started in the mobile set.  That the complainant approaches the respondent No. 2 for several times with the request to repair the mobile set properly or to replace the mobile set with new one, but respondents failed to replace the mobile Set with new one.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                Notice issued to the respondents No. 2 to 4, but no one appeared on their behalf before this Forum despite service of summons and the respondents No. 2 to 4 were proceeded as exparte vide order dated 3.1.2018.  Notice issued to the respondent No. 1, but no one appeared on his behalf despite service of summon and respondent No. 1 was proceeded as exparte vide order dated 3.10.2018.

3.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant placed on record affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A, copy of bill as Annexure-C1 and copy of Job Sheet as Annexure-C2 and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard ld. Counsel for the complainant at length.

5.                The case of the complainant goes unchallenged and un-rebutted, as the respondents have failed to appear before this Forum despite service of summons.  It appears that the claim of complainant is genuine and the respondents have nothing material to say with them.  Learned counsel for the complainant has also placed affidavit of the complainant, copy of bill and also job sheet to prove the claim of the complainant.  From the perusal of the documents reveals that the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 19.11.2016 for a sum of Rs.9600/- from respondent No.1.  The contention of complainant is that after 4-5 month of its purchase, the battery of mobile set started giving heat, mobile drops network many times and facing difficulty while running internet.  As such, all the allegations leveled against the opposite parties regarding selling of defective mobile set stands proved, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

6.                Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances and the evidence brought on record by complainant, we allowed the complaint

and the opposite parties are directed as under :-

1. to refund the amount of Rs.9600/- to the complainant for

the cost of defective mobile.

2. to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of mental

agony, physical harassment and hardship.

3. to pay Rs.2,000/- for litigation expenses.

7.       The order at Sr.No.(i) will be complied by OP No.3 and 4 individually as well as severally,  order at Sr.No.(ii) will be complied by OP No.2 and order at Sr.No.(iii) will be complied by OP No.1.

8.       Compliance of the order shall be made by the respondents within 30 days from the date of receiving of its certified copies, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) shall carry interest @12%  per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.  However, complainant is also directed to hand over the mobile in question to the respondents No.3/4 at the time of payment.  The copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open court.

25.10.2018

(Renu Chaudhary),        (Parmod Kumar)         (Manjit Singh Naryal)

Member.                         Member.                              President,

                                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                                       Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.