Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 89.
Instituted on : 01.02.2016.
Decided on : 21.04.2016.
Dilraj s/o Late Sh.Hukam Singh, H.No.701, Sector-2, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s Madhvi Enterprises, Shop No. 1348/49B, Chhotu Ram Chowk, Rohtak(Through its Proprietor/Owner).
- M/s Micromax Service Centre, Near ZAD Computers, HUDA Complex, Rohtak-124001, (Through its Manager/Authorised Person).
- M/s Micromax Informatics Ltd., 21/14A, Phase-II, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi-110028(Through its MD/Authorized Representative/ Consumer Care Officer).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Rajiv Gulia, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties already exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchased a mobile set make Micromax A 300 bearing IMEI No.911338901436669/911338901526659 from the opposite party no.1 vide bill no.3445 dated 29.12.2014 after making the payment of Rs.15500/-. It is averred that opposite party No.1 is a retailer, opposite party no.2 is service centre and opposite party no.3 is manufacturer of the above said mobile. It is averred that since the day of its purchase the alleged mobile phone started showing some technical/manufacturing problems/defect especially Camera flash issue and most of times it goes “Hang” and the matter was reported to opposite party no.2 many times i.e. on 04.07.2015, 18.09.2015 and on 04.12.2015 the opposite party kept the mobile set with him for 10 to 15 days and lastly the handset was deposited with the opposite party since 01.01.2016. It is averred that despite several visits to the service center the fault could not be removed by the opposite party no.2 and now they are demanding Rs.2500/- to get repaired the above said mobile handset. It is averred that the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the cost of mobile set i.e. Rs.15500/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite parties. But none appeared on behalf of opposite parties and as such opposite parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.03.2016 of this Forum.
3. Complainant led evidence in support of his case and has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and has closed his evidence.
4. We have heard ld. Counsel for the complainant and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. There is no rebuttal to the evidence that as per bill Ex.C1, the complainant had purchased a mobile set of Micromax from the opposite party no.1 for an amount of Rs.15500/-. It is also not disputed that as per the receipt Ex.C2 there was issue regarding demand of New handset and camera flash issue also and the handset was deposited with the opposite party no.2. The contention of ld. counsel for the complainant is that the mobile set in question was defective since its purchase but the opposite parties could not remove the defects despite his repeated requests and the handset in question is with the service centre i.e. opposite party no.2. On the other hand, it is observed that opposite parties have not appeared before this Forum to rebut the version taken by the complainant in his 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 manufacturing defect in the alleged mobile set stands proved. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in 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”. In view of the aforesaid law which is applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed it is a fit case where the refund of price is justified.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that opposite party no.3 i.e. manufacturer is liable to refund the price of mobile set to the complainant. As such it is directed that opposite party no.3 shall refund the price of mobile set i.e Rs.15500/-(Rupees fifteen thousand five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 01.02.2016 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. Complaint is allowed accordingly.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
21.04.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member.
