BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.369 of 2014
Date of Instt. 21.10.2014
Date of Decision :13.04.2015
Jasmeet @ Jasmeet Pal aged about 23 years son of Late Satnam Pal R/o H.No.226, St.No.2, Kakipind, Rama Mandi, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Gopal Service Centre, Shop No.36, Silver Plaza Complex, Sanjog Palace Sodal Road, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner/Authorized representative.;
2. X Zone, Chandigarh, Micromax Check Point, SCO 824, NAC, Mani Mazra, Chandigarh.
3. Micromax Informatic Ltd., 21/14A, Phase-II, Nariana Industrial Area, New Delhi-110028 through its Manager/Director/Authorized.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of 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.3.
Opposite parties No.1 & 2 exparte.
Order
J.S Bhatia (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased a mobile phone model Micromax A-76 bearing IMEI No.911323000948269 for Rs.7800/- vide bill No.2835 dated 12.11.2013 from Makkar Enterprises, Kakipind, Raman Mandi, Jalandhar. One year warranty was given for above said mobile phone at the time of sale of above said mobile handset. In the first week of August 2014 the said mobile phone became out of order. The restart/reboots problem arose in it. The complainant brought the above defect into the notice of dealer who advised the complainant to approach their service centre/opposite party No.1. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 and handed over the defective mobile handset to opposite party No.1 on 9.8.2014. The opposite party No.1 checked the mobile handset and found the problem of restart/reboots. The opposite party No.1 kept the defective mobile handset with them for repair and gave a job sheet dated 9.8.2014 to complainant. The opposite party No.1 told the complainant to collect handset after 25 days as it would be sent to company. After 25 days when the complainant went to collect the mobile handset, the opposite party No.1 told the complainant that its problem could not be removed due to some major reason and further gave 15 days time to collect the handset. When after 15 days the complainant went to take the handset, the opposite party No.1 told the complainant that it could not be repaired due to their busy schedule and further told the complainant to come after one week. When after one week the complainant went to take the handset, the opposite party No.1 told the complainant that the said handset has been sent to company and further told the complainant to come after some days to take the handset. On 14.10.2014 when the complainant went to opposite party No.1 to take the handset, to the great surprise of complainant, the opposite party No.1 told the complainant that the said handset has been misplaced somewhere by them and the same is not traceable despite their best efforts. The complainant requested the opposite party No.1 to give new handset in place of the original handset misplaced by them but the opposite party No.1 refused to give new handset in lieu of the lost handset. Complainant visited the opposite party No.1 to get mobile handset again and again but every time the opposite party No.1 put the complainant on one pretext or the other. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to give new handset in place of the lost handset with fresh warranty of one year or to return him its price alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice opposite parties No.1 & 2 did not appear and as such they were proceeded against exparte. However, opposite party No.3 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 25.3.2015.
3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed evidence.
4. Opposite party No.3 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.3.
6. The complainant purchased the mobile handset in question from Makkar Enterprises vide retail invoice dated 12.11.2013 Ex.C1 for Rs.7800/-. According to the complainant in August 2014 i.e during warranty period his mobile handset became out of order and he handed over the mobile handset to opposite party No.1 vide job sheet dated 9.8.2014 Ex.C2. Further according to complainant, the opposite party No.1 told him that the mobile handset has misplaced somewhere and same is not traceable. In support of his version, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CA and job sheet Ex.C2. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 have not come present to contest the claim of the complainant. However the opposite party No.3 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. So from the evidence adduced by the complainant, it stand proved that mobile handset given to opposite party No.1 has been lost or misplaced. So the complainant is entitled to new mobile handset.
7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.1 & 3 are directed to give new mobile handset to the complainant of the same make and model or in the alternative to refund its price i.e Rs.7800/- 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
