BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.459 of 2015

Date of Instt. 23.10.2015

Date of Decision : 07.04.2016

Deepak aged about 25 years R/o H.No.244, Tanda Road, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. M/s Gopal Telecom, Eh-198, Shop No.2 (GF), Civil Lines, GT Road, Near Gujrat Palace, Jalandhar through its Manager.

2. Micromax House, 90-B, Sector-18, Gurgaon, through its Managing Director.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Robin Budhiraja Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Opposite parties exparte.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant purchased one mobile set of Micromax model No.A300 Canves having IMEI No.911338901238958 vide invoice No.47515 dated 21.11.2014 from Mobile House, Jalandhar for Rs.15,000/-. The complainant faced problem of this handset after six months from the date of purchase i.e. hanging and result in switched off during calling and without calling. The complainant approached the OP No.1 authorized service centre of OP No.2 on 13.7.2015 and OP No.1 refresh the software of the handset and assured him that in future he will not face this problem with his handset. After 3 days the complainant again faced the same problem and ultimately he visited the service centre of OP No.2 again on 17.7.2015 but OP No.1 again refresh the handset and did not attend him properly. Again on 23.7.2015 same problem has arisen in the handset and OP No.1 has taken the handset in its custody for repairs and issued job sheet and OP No.1 gave time of seven days for taking the handset but when complainant visited the service center, OP No.1 prolonged the matter on one pretext or other. When complainant again visited the service centre on 6.8.2015 then OP No.1 told him that chip system of this handset has damaged totally and there is no chance to repair it. Then OP No.1 demanded 7 days more time to replace the handset with new one from company i.e. OP no.2 but till today OP No.1 has not been able to replace the handset of the complainant after number of repeated requests made by complainant. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the mobile set or to return the price of the mobile handset. He has also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties were served but OPs neither appeared nor filed written statement as such they were proceeded against exparte.

3. In support of his exparte complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed the exparte evidence of the complainant.

4. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant.

5. From the entire record i.e. version of the complainant in the complaint and the documents produced by the complainant, it stands fully proved on record that complainant purchased Micromax mobile handset in question vide invoice dated 21.11.2014 Ex.C1 for Rs.15,000/- with warranty of one year. The said mobile set became defective after about six months from the date of purchase with the problem of hanging and switched off automatically. The complainant approached OP No.1 authorized service centre of OP No.2 on 13.7.2015 and they rectified the problem in the handset and handed over the same to the complainant but same problem occurred after three days again and complainant again approached the OP No.1 on 17.7.2015 but the OP No.1 did not attend the complainant properly and ultimately complainant handed over the mobile set to OP No.1 on 23.7.2015 vide job sheet Ex.C2 with problem of “power switch off automatically” but this time OP No.1 could not repair the mobile set of the complainant nor returned the same to the complainant, since then the mobile set has been lying with OP No.1.

6. None appeared on behalf of the OPs despite service nor filed written statement to deny the complaint nor any person from OPs dared to file affidavit to rebut the evidence produced on file by the complainant as such evidence produced on record by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged. Therefore, this Fora is of the view that mobile set of the complainant is not repairable that is why OP No.1 could not repair the same and return the same to the complainant. Since 23.7.2015 the said mobile set has been lying with the OP No.1. Therefore, OPs are bound to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one.

7. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed exparte with cost and the OPs are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same make and model or in the alternative to refund the price of the mobile set to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest on the price amount of the mobile set of the complainant i.e. Rs.15,000/- @ Rs.9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. The OPs are also directed to pay cost of litigation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/-. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Bhupinder Singh

07.04.2016 Member Member President