View 2292 Cases Against Micromax
Pooja Sharma filed a consumer case on 31 Aug 2016 against M/S Happy Communi. Op1 And The Micromax Home Op2 in the Jind Consumer Court. The case no is CC/16/26 and the judgment uploaded on 10 Oct 2016.
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
Complaint No. 12 of 2016
Date of Institution: 28.01.2016
Date of final order: 1.9.2016
Pooja Sharma d/o Shiv Kumar r/o 3484 Urban Estate, Jind, Tehsil and District Jind.
….Complainant.
Versus
…..Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.
Present: Sh. N.M. Sharma Adv. for complainant.
Opposite parties already ex-parte.
ORDER:
The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant had purchased one new Micromax mobile for a sum of Rs.6,990/- vide receipt No.6115 dated 28.1.2015 from opposite party No.1, which is manufactured by opposite party No.2. The opposite parties have given the warranty of one year of the above said mobile in question. The above said mobile set is having manufacturing defect. The brother-in-law of the complainant namely Vikas Sharma took the mobile set to customer service centre vide job card dated 28.10.2015 and again vide
Pooja Sharma Vs. M/s Happy Communication etc.
…2…
job card dated 9.11.2015 but the incharge of the service centre handed over the said mobile set that it is having some manufacturing defect and it is not repairable one. Thereafter, the complainant made a complaint to opposite party No.1 for removing the defect of the mobile set but the opposite party No.1 did not pay any heed on the request of the complainant. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to replace the mobile set as well as to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant.
2. Opposite parties No.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 3.6.2016 and 22.7.2016 respectively. 3. In ex-parte evidence, the complainant has produced her own affidavit Annexure C-1, cash memo Annexure C-2, copy of job sheet Annexure C-3 and customer job card Annexure C-4 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the counsel for complainant and perused the record placed on file. The counsel for complainant argued that complainant had purchased one new Micromax mobile for a sum of Rs.6,990/- vide receipt No.6115 dated 28.1.2015 from opposite party No.1. The opposite parties have given the warranty of one year of the above said mobile in question. It is further alleged that the above said mobile set is having manufacturing defect. The brother-in-law of the complainant namely Vikas Sharma took the mobile set to customer service centre vide job card dated 28.10.2015 and again vide job card
Pooja Sharma Vs. M/s Happy Communication etc.
…3…
dated 9.11.2015 but the incharge of the service centre handed over the said mobile set stating that it is having some manufacturing defect and it is not repairable one. The above said mobile became out of order within one year from the date of its purchase and did not function properly. It is further argued that the opposite parties did not remove the fault of the mobile and prayed to allow the complaint.
5. After hearing the counsel for complainant, the mobile is not working properly which is clearly from the job sheet (Annexure C-3) the problem reported in the job sheet that power does not switch on.
The complainant has also filed her affidavit Annexure C-1 in support of her complaint. The opposite parties have not bother to appear before this Forum, hence the allegation of the complainant is un-rebutted one and goes in favour of complainant. Accordingly the complaint is allowed with cost and the opposite party No.1 is directed to replace the mobile set with new one or to pay the cost of mobile i.e. Rs.6,990/-(Rs. six thousand nine hundred ninety only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving the certified copy of order, failing which the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 28.1.2016 till its realization. We assess Rs.1100/-(Rs. eleven hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 1.9.2016
President,
Member Member District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind
Pooja Sharma Vs. M/s Happy Communication etc.
Present: Sh. N.M. Sharma Adv. for complainant.
Opposite parties already ex-parte.
Arguments heard. To come up on 1.9.2016 for orders.
President,
Member Member DCDRF, Jind
31.8.2016
Present: Sh. N.M. Sharma Adv. for complainant.
Opposite parties already ex-parte.
Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
President,
Member Member DCDRF, Jind
1.9.2016
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.