Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 218.
Instituted on : 07.05.2015.
Decided on : 03.08.2015.
Geetanjali w/o Sh. Rahul Bajaj R/o Killa Mohalla, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Jagdamba Communication, Gohana Adda-Rohtak-124001 through its prop/Authorized person.
- Micro Max Mobiles Limited, Micro Max House, 90B, Sector-18, Gurgaon through its Managing Director.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Gulshan Chawla Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that she had purchased a mobile set Micromax A114 from the opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.8700/- manufactured by the opposite party no.2. It is averred that the mobile in question worked properly for a short span of time and on 23.02.2015 screen got blanked and the complainant approached the service centre of opposite party no.2 but the official refused to entertain the same and demanded Rs.2500/- for getting the mobile repaired, even though the mobile set was within warranty. It is averred that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile but the opposite parties refused to get the mobile repaired/replaced or to refund the price of set. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal ant amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay a sum of Rs.8700/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite parties. But opposite parties did not appear and as such were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.06.2015 of this Forum.
3. Complainant led evidence in support of her case.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard ld. Counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that the complainant had purchased the mobile set for a sum of Rs.8700/- on 04.11.2014 from the opposite party no.1 as is proved from bill Ex.C1. It is also not disputed that the screen of the mobile got blanked on dated 23.02.2015 and as per copy of legal notice sent through mail to the company, it is submitted that the complainant approached the authorized service station of the company but they refused to entertain the same and demanded Rs.2500/- for getting the same repaired and through this notice opposite party was called upon to repair the mobile within 7 days but neither the mobile was repaired nor any reply was given.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that the defect in the alleged handset appeared just after 3 months of its purchase i.e. within warranty period but the same could not be repaired by the opposite parties. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in 2008(1)CPC 52 titled Sony Ericsson India Ltd. Vs. Ashish Aggarwal, whereby Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Mobile purchased from OP had problem in key pad-New hand set after replacement also found to be faulty-State Commission directed refund of the money while OP insisted to offer replacement by new hand set-Refund of amount is justified as deficiency in service is writ large-Order upheld” as per 2014(1)CLT588 titled Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Ltd. & Others Hon’ble Delhi State Commission has held that: “In the event when a product is found to be defective at the very beginning it is always better to order for the refund of the amount because replacement of the product will never satisfied the consumer because the consumer had lost faith in that company’s product-if the repaired product is again returned to the consumer and if develops the defect again then the consumer will be put to much larger harassment because he had to fight another bond of litigation which will be highly torturous”. It is also on record that the opposite parties have not appeared before this Forum to rebut the version taken by the complainant in her complaint and were proceeded against exparte and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter. Therefore all the versions put forth by the complainant regarding defects in the alleged mobile set stands proved. In view of the aforesaid law, which are fully applicable on the facts & circumstances of the case, it is observed that the complainant is entitled for refund of price of mobile set.
8. In view of the aforesaid findings and discussions, it is directed that the opposite party no.2 i.e. manufacturer shall refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.8700/-(Rupees eight thousand seven thousand only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.1500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
10. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
03.08.2015.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
