DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM,GURGAON-122001.

                                                                                                    Consumer Complaint No: 126 of 2014                                                                                                                                                                    Date of Institution: 24.04.2014                                                                                                                                                                   Date of Decision: 09.10.2015.

M.S.Chauhan aged 74 years S/o late Sh.Gobind Singh Chauhan, R/o H.No.490, Sector-4, U.E. Gurgaon.

                                                                                                  ……Complainant.

                                                Versus

M/s Micromax India, Micromax House, 90-B, Sector-18, Gurgaon-122015 through its Director/Manager.

M/s Shree Sai Telecom(Gurgaon) Shop No.1, Devi Palace, Opp. Raj Cinema, Old Delhi Road, Gurgaon through Owner.

M/s Spice Comm. 112-113, Sector-14, Main Market, Gurgaon-122001 through owner.

                                                                                           ..Opposite parties

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                 

BEFORE:     SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.

                     SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER

 SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.

Present:        Sh.M.S.Chauhan, complainant in person

                     Shri Satyavir Sharma, Adv for the OP-1 & 2

                     Opposite party No.3

ORDER        SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.       

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased a Micromax Mobile MMX A 87 Device from opposite party no.2 for a sum of Rs.7,000/- on 13.01.2013. From the very beginning the said mobile phone started giving troubles  and consequently, he deposited the mobile handset to the service station of Micromax who issued Job Sheet dated 03.12.2013 but even after 45 days the handset could not be repaired. Thus, alternate device A-85 was given on 16.01.2014 but it also became dead within a week and it was deposited with the Service Centre on 23.01.2014 and it was returned on 26.02.2014 after 35 days in the same condition without any repair on the ground that the warranty had expired. Thus, the above said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund the price of the handset or to replace it with new one with defect free handset. He also claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents placed on file.

2.                Opposite parties No.1 & 2 in their joint written reply have alleged that the complainant purchased the mobile handset on 13.01.2013 and deposited the handset with the authorized service station for the first time on 03.12.2013 after using the handset for almost 11 months and it was returned to the complainant after repair. He again complained about the problem and on inspection it was found that there was battery problem and the battery was having the warranty of only six months and the complainant was asked to pay the charges but he refused. The complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence o record to support his allegations of defect in the handset. He also failed to produce any expert report to substantiate his claim. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No.1 & 2.

3                 OP-3, however, failed to turn up despite service and was proceeded exparte on 27.06.2014.

4                 We have heard complainant and the learned counsel for the opposite parties and have perused the record available on file carefully.

5                 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the complainant and the learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 & 2,  it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency of service on their part on the ground that  complainant purchased  Micromax Mobile MMX A 87 Device from opposite party no.2 for a sum of Rs.7,000/- on 13.01.2013 but the said mobile phone started creating troubles and the complainant deposited the said mobile phone with Micromax Service Centre which issued Job Sheet dated 03.12.2013 and thereafter said service centre replaced the said mobile phone on 16.01.2014. However, said mobile phone was also not working properly and it also became dead and the complainant again deposited the same on 23.01.2014 and the same was returned to the complainant on 25.02.2014 after 35 days without repair and the complainant was informed that warranty period had expired. The complainant prayed for replacement of defective mobile phone.

6                 However, as per the contention of the opposite parties the mobile phone was deposited with the service centre after 11 months and the same was duly repaired and returned to the complainant but the complainant again approached the Service Centre and defect in the battery was found which was having warranty of only six months and the handset at that time was found 11 months old and the problem was rectified but the complainant again approached the service centre and the service centre demanded charges for the repair as the warranty had expired and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It was also argued that there was no mechanical report in order to come to the conclusion that the said mobile phone was having any manufacturing defect and as such eh complaint was liable to be dismissed.

7                 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence produced on record it is evident that the mobile phone which was purchased by the complainant developed some problem after 11 months of its purchase and the same was rectified but the said mobile phone  again developed problem due to battery backup and by that time the handset warranty had expired and the opposite parties demanded charges regarding repair. However, it has come in evidence that the said mobile phone was deposited with the service centre within a period of one year but the period of one year had expired when the same was swapped with new one but the same also developed problem. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that  opposite parties were under obligation to rectify the defect allegedly on account of battery in the said mobile phone free of costs. There is absolutely no evidence on the file that the said mobile phone was having any manufacturing defect so as to order for the replacement of the same. Accordingly, we direct the opposite parties to repair the mobile phone in question as the same was in warranty within 30 days. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.500/- on account of compensation as well as litigation expenses. Opposite parties shall make compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.

Announced                                                                                     (Subhash Goyal)

09.10.2015                                                                                          President,

                                                                                              District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

(Jyoti Siwach)        (Surender Singh Balyan)

Member                 Member