BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.448 of 2014

Date of Instt. 22.12.2014

Date of Decision :13.04.2015

Dr.Gaurav Salhotra, B6-1/5, BDA Enclave, Tanda Road, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Gopal Service Centre, Shop No.36, Silver Plaza Complex, Opp.Sanyog Palace Sodal Road, Jalandhar-144001.

2. Customer Care Officer, Micromax Informatics Ltd, 21/14A, Phase-II, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi-110028.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Manuj Aggarwal adv., counsel for OP No.2.

Opposite party No.1 exparte.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant purchased new mobile handset Micromax model Canvas-4 model A210 from mobile house, Jalandhar on 2.1.2014 for sum of Rs.16500/- IEMI No.911316302246366 and 911316302552367. Mobile handset is having a warranty period of one year and within warranty, handset developed a defect in its touch screen. Due to this, it was very difficult to use the mobile handset. Firstly the complainant visited service centre regarding the problem in the touch screen and deposited it there. They promised that the mobile handset will be fixed within 21 working days. After 21 working days when complainant received the mobile handset, its touch screen was still in the same position/not working properly. Moreover several problems started arising in the mobile handset. Its speakers and WiFi was not working properly. Complainant against visited service centre regarding above said problem and had deposited the mobile handset but after some days he again gave back the handset to the complainant without solving the said problems. The frustrated complainant approached another authorized service centre of Micromax company on 11.9.2014. They found that the problems are genuine and mobile handset of the complainant was sent to Chandigarh Micromax branch office for further repair as it was under warranty period and was received by complainant on 27.10.2014. Same problem arose again. Complainant again visited M/s Gopal Service Centre regarding the issue. The officials at the service centre had telephonic talk with their senior officials and told the complainant that the mobile handset will be replaced with a new one as the company had failed to fix the problems. They told the complainant to use the mobile handset for a week and then resubmit it to the service centre. The complainant resubmitted the handset on 1.11.2014 and till date they had not given any feedback regarding mobile handset after visiting the service centre several times. Number of times complainant visited the service centre but till date the mobile handset is with the Micromax service centre and they have failed to solve the problem. The complainant had lodged several written complaints regarding his mobile handset through emails but no proactive action was taken by the Micromax Company. Hence, the present complaint.

2. Notice of this complaint was given to opposite parties but opposite party No.1 did not appear and as such it was proceeded against exparte. However, opposite party No.2 appeared through Sh.Manuj Aggarwal Advocate but it did not file any written statement inspite of number of opportunities and as such it was debarred from filing written statement vide order dated 12.3.2015.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C17 and closed evidence.

4. Opposite party No.2 has not led any evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by the complainant.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.

6. The complainant purchased the mobile handset in question from Mobile House vide retail invoice dated 2.1.2014 Ex.C15 for Rs.16500/-. According to the complainant the mobile handset developed some defect and was given to service centres of the company but they failed to resolve the problem. The complainant has also placed on record service job sheets Ex.C16 and Ex.C17. The complainant has also placed on record copies of emails Ex.C7 to Ex.C14. In support of this version, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CA. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 has not come present to contest the claim of the complainant. However the opposite party No.2 appeared but did not file any reply rebutting the allegations of the complainant. So we have no reason to disbelieve unrebutted version of the complainant. It is in the affidavit of the complainant that he resubmitted the handset on 1.11.2014 and till date service centre has not given feed back regarding mobile handset after visiting the service centre number of times. So from the unrebutted evidence adduced by the complainant his version stand proved.

7. Consequently, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties are directed to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one of the same make and model or in the alternative to refund its price i.e Rs.16500/- to him. The complainant is awarded Rs.2000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

13.04.2015 Member Member President