DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.333 of 2016
Date of institution: 02.06.2016 Date of decision : 14.03.2018
Ramesh Kumar Pandey aged 38 years son of Shri Bhuneshwar Pandey, resident of # 244, Adarsh Colony, Block-B, Balongi, Tehsil and District, SAS Nagar.
…….Complainant
Vs
1. M/s. Luxmi Communications, SCF No.78, First Floor, Phase-2, SAS Nagar through its Proprietor.
2. Gulati Garments, Booth No.44, Phase 1st, SAS Nagar through its Proprietor.
3. Micromax Informatic Limited, 21/14A, Phase II, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi 110028 through its Managing Director.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
OP No.1 and 2 ex-parte
Shri Puneet Tuli, counsel for OP No.3
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant purchased mobile phone of Micromax company vide bill No.3475 dated 22.02.2016 for amount of Rs.5,000/- from OP No.2. This mobile phone was used by complainant for 20 days only, when he noticed some problems in its use. Then on 22.03.2016, complainant visited OP No.2, who sent mobile phone for its repair to OP No.1, the customer care centre. Mobile phone was purchased by complainant through Home Credit, a financial company. Despite numerous requests submitted by complainant on telephone or on personal visits, OPs failed to repair or replace the mobile phone of complainant and as such by pleading deficiency in service on part of OPs, prayer made for directing OPs to refund the price amount of Rs.5,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 22.02.2016. Cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/- and compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.20,000/- more claimed.
2. OP No.1 and 2 are ex-parte in this case, but right of OP No.3 to file written reply was struck of vide orders dated 22.05.2017.
3. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 and thereafter closed evidence. Evidence of OP No.3 was closed vide orders dated 11.10.2017 and thereafter case was posted for arguments.
4. There was neither any written statement and nor any evidence adduced by any of the parties in this case except by complainant. Affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 of complainant alongwith invoice Ex.C-2 establishes that complainant purchased mobile phone in question from OP No.2 on 22.02.2016 by paying price of Rs.5,000/-. After going through condition No.2 endorsed on the foot of Ex C-2 itself, it is made out that guarantee of goods sold to be provided at company service centre. Defects in the mobile in question took place after one month of purchase as per pleadings and proved case of complainant with the help of job sheet Ex.C-1 and as such virtually there was no defect in the mobile for one month after its purchase. Being so, in view of Clause-2 endorsed on the foot of Ex.-2, the seller i.e. OP No.2 cannot be held liable for the defects occurring after sale of the product. As the guarantee is to be provided by the company or its service centre and as such it is the responsibility of OP No.3 as manufacturer and of OP No.1, the service centre to remove the defects in the mobile in question.
5. Job sheet Ex.C-1 dated 22.03.2016 is produced on record by the complainant for establishing that repair for problems of locks up or of not responding was sought by the complainant on 22.03.2016 within warranty period. On the foot note of Ex.C-1 itself, mention of words “without battery” is made. On account of this endorsement on job sheet Ex.C-1 certainly plea of complainant has force that the mobile in question without battery has been deposited by him with OP No.1 on 22.03.2016. As that mobile after repair has not been returned and as such certainly complainant suffered mental tension, agony and harassment because he was deprived of use of mobile phone in question since from a long period. Worth of mobile is Rs. 5,000/- only and the complainant could have purchased new mobile phone for overcoming the difficulties and harassment, on account of non use of mobile phone and as such fitness of things warrants that requisite amount of compensation of Rs.2,500/- is appropriate along with cost of litigation of Rs.2,500/-. Both the amounts when computed together will be equal to the price of mobile phone and as such these amounts allowed as compensation and cost of litigation.
6. As defects in the mobile phone have not been rectified and nor the mobile phone returned despite deposit by the complainant with OP No.1 on 22.03.2016 through job sheet Ex.C-1 and as such it is obvious that mobile phone in question virtually may not be repairable and that is why the same not returned till today. Being so, complainant entitled for replacement of mobile phone in question with new one of same worth or of same brand. Liability of this replacement is of OP No.3, manufacturer or of service centre i.e. OP No.1 and as such they are directed to replace the mobile phone in question within 40 days provided complainant returns the accessories i.e. battery, charger and mobile guard etc. available with him to OP No.1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
7. As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint dismissed against OP No.2 but the same allowed against OP Nos.1 and 3 with direction to replace the mobile hand set in question with new one of same brand or of equal worth of Rs. 5,000/- within 40 day from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order provided complainant returns the accessories i.e. battery, charger and mobile guard etc available with him to OP No.1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.2,500/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2,500/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP Nos.1 and 3, whose liability held as joint and several. Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
March 14, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu) Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
