BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.225 of 2015

Date of Instt. 27.05.2015

Date of Decision :05.08.2015

Vikas Guleria aged about 28 years son of Santool Singh, R/o H.No.220E, St.No.2, Partap Nagar, Near Wadala Chowk, Jalandhar.

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

1. M/s Gopal Telecom, EH-198, Shop No.2(GF), Civil Lines, Near Gujarat Palace, Jalandhar-144001 through its Prop./Partner/Manager/ Authorized Representative.

2. Micromax Informatics Ltd, 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon (Haryana), through its Managing Director/Authorized Representative.

.........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.

Opposite parties 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 handset model Micromax Canvas Knight A 350 Black and Gold, bearing IMEI No.911357700215793 ordered through Snapdeal vide invoice No.49 BF3D/14-15/4178 dated 31.8.2014 for Rs.18130/- from RUD Enterprise manufactured/supplied by opposite party No.2. One year warranty was given for above said mobile handset. Within warranty period, the handset started giving problems right after purchase. At first in December 2014, the said handset became out of order. When contacted the opposite party No.1, they kept the handset with them for repair and called the complainant after 15-20 days. Again the said handset became out of order in January 2015. The opposite party No.1 again kept the said handset with them for 20 days. In February 2015 the said handset again became out of order. The opposite party again kept the defective handset with them for 20 days. The said handset is still lying with the opposite party No.1 from April 2015 which they have neither repaired nor replaced. First time its side button volume and lock became out of order, second time its voice receiver became out of order, 3rd time its main camera became out of order and 4th time its screen became out of order. The complainant sent so many emails quoting the above said defects to opposite party No.2 but the opposite party no.2 never replied satisfactorily. The complainant requested the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to replace the handset but the opposite parties refused to accept the genuine request of the complainant. Complainant visited the opposite party No.1 to get mobile handset again and again but every time the opposite party No.1 kept on stalling and giving pity excuses. Aggrieved with the attitude and behaviour of opposite party No.1, the complainant brought his grievances into the notice of opposite party No.2 through telephonic calls and emails but they ignored to attend the telephone calls of the complainant and did not reply the emails satisfactorily which shows their malafide intentions. The said handset is still lying with opposite party No.1 which they have neither repaired nor replaced nor returned. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile handset alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties did not appear and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed evidence.

4. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person.

5. Complainant purchased the mobile handset in question vide retail invoice dated 31.8.2014 Ex.C1 for Rs.18130/-. According to the complainant, during warranty period, the handset firstly became out of order in December 2014 and then in January 2015 and then in February 2015. Further according to the complainant, the said handset is still lying with opposite party No.1 since April 2015 which has neither been repaired nor replaced. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CA and produced documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10. In the job sheet dated 11.4.2015 Ex.C2 the problems reported are mentioned as "4911 Display Touch Screen Not Working". It is in the affidavit Ex.CA of the complainant that the said handset is still lying with opposite party No.1 which they have neither repaired nor replaced nor returned. The opposite parties have not come present to contest the claim of the complainant. So it appears that they have nothing to say in the matter.

6. Consequently, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties are directed either 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 to him. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- 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

05.08.2015 Member Member President