Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/801/2014

Manya Juneja - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Micromax Informatics Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

10 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/801/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	04/12/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	10/04/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Manya Juneja (minor) through natural guardian/ father Mr. Parmesh Juneja, R/o House No. 5494, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

……….Complainant

Versus

 

[1]  M/s Micromax Informatics Limited, through its Managing Director, having registered head office at Micromax House, 90-B, Sector 18, Gurgaon (Haryana)-122015.

 

[2]  M/s Raju Traders, through its owner/ partner, having registered office at SCF 212, Near Local Bus Stand, Manimajra, Chandigarh – 160101.

 

[3]  M/s Abacus Systems, through its Partner/ Owner, having registered office at SCO 824, N.A.C. Manimajra, above Indian Bank, Chandigarh.

…………Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    SH. P.L. AHUJA             PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                MEMBER

                    

Present:      Sh. Satish Kumar Saini, Authorized Agent of the Complainant.

Opposite Parties ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

1.      Briefly stated, the Complainant had purchased one Micromax N.A108 mobile handset on 17.08.2014 from Opposite Party No.2 for Rs.10,000/- vide Cash Memo Annex.C-1. It has been alleged that the Complainant was never sure as to whether the purchased mobile handset was a fresh new piece or some old/used/tempered one, as it was handed over without any sealed box and no warranty card or any such warranty document or agreement prescribing relevant terms & conditions of warranty upon said sold product, was respectively handed over or executed with the Complainant. It has been further alleged that within 24 hours of its usage, the Complainant noticed hanging problem in the said mobile handset and accordingly approached the Opposite Party No.2, who suggested that it was a minor problem and would not persist for long. The Complainant requested the Opposite Party No.2 to provide the requisite warranty document, but Opposite Party No.2 showed its inability to do so, stating that the same was not supplied by the Manufacturer (Opposite Party No.1). In the first week of September, 2014, another problem of ‘keypad backlight error’ started erupting. The Complainant immediately reported the said issue to the Opposite Party No.2 and requested for refund or replacement of the faulty mobile handset, but Opposite Party No.2 did not agree to the same. It has been further alleged that the Complainant could never properly use the mobile set in question since the day one and when reported the defects to the Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant was always sent back with the suggestion for approaching the Authorized Service Centre of Opposite Party No.1. It has been averred that on the advice of Opposite Party No.2, the Complainant deposited the faulty mobile handset with the Opposite Party No.3 on 25.10.2014, vide Service Job Sheet Annexure C-2. The Complainant was told to collect the mobile handset after a week. Although the Complainant regularly approached Opposite Party No.3 after the said one week, but neither said faulty mobile was rectified nor a replacement thereof was made. However, each time, the Complainant was advised to come some another day to collect the handset. Feeling harassed, both mentally and physically, the Complainant wrote an e-mail dated 02.11.2014 (Annex.C-3) to the Opposite Party No.1, followed by reminders dated 04.11.2014 (Annex.C-4) and 09.11.2014 (Annex.C-5), but nothing fruitful could come out. When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, the Complainant sent legal notice dated 25.11.2014 through e-mail (Annexure C-7), but that too failed to fetch the desired results. Hence, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3, despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 04.03.2015.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1 initially appeared through Sh. Amandeep Singh, Advocate, but subsequently none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 and therefore vide order dated 05.03.2015, it was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.

 

4.      Complainant led evidence.

 

5.      We have heard the Authorized Agent of the Complainant and have also perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf the Complainant.  

 

6.      The Complainant has placed on record a copy of the Cash Memo dated 17.8.2014 as Annexure C-1, vide which she was sold one Micromax A108 Mobile handset for Rs.10,000/- by the Opposite Party No.2. The handset in question got defective within few days of its purchase. Annexure C-2 dated 25.10.2014 is the Job Sheet, according to which the problem reported was “KEYPAD BACKLIGHT ISSUE”. As per the case of the Complainant, inspite of repeated requests and reminders, in the form of e-mails (Annexure C-3 to C-6), the Opposite Parties never returned the mobile handset, in question, after required repairs, instead they have kept the same in their possession, till date. Even the warranty card, including warranty terms and conditions was never issued to the Complainant at the time of the purchase and even after requesting the Retailer (Opposite Party No.2) a number of times by the Complainant at the later stage as well. The Opposite Party No.2 informed the Complainant that the warranty card has not been issued by the Manufacturer (Opposite Party No.1) itself and if the Complainant is in need of the same, then she has to approach the Opposite Party No.1. Annexure C-7 is the legal notice in the form of e-mail, which was also not replied by the Opposite Parties.    
7.      It is important to note here that Opposite Parties have not appeared to contest the claim of the Complainant and preferred to proceed ex-parte which draws an adverse inference against them. The evidence of the Complainant has gone unrebutted against them.

 

8.      In the present Complaint, the Complainant was deprived of the usage of her mobile handset for such a long time inspite of spending such a handsome amount of Rs.10,000/- on its purchase. It is pertinent that inspite of various e-mail communications and personal requests the defect in the mobile handset has not been rectified and the same has not been returned to the Complainant, till date, which make the Opposite Parties liable for their inappropriate services. Moreover, the attitude of the Opposite Parties in not providing the warranty card containing the warranty terms & conditions to the Complainant, keeping the handset in their custody instead of returning the same to the Complainant after rectifying the defects, proves deficiency in service which certainly caused physical and mental harassment to the Complainant.

 

9.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are directed, jointly and severally, to:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.10,000/- being the invoice price of the Micromax A108 mobile handset;

 

[b]  To pay a compensation of Rs.7,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant. 

 

[c]  To pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation costs. 

 

 

10.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% p.a. on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c] above.  

 

11.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

10^th April,2015                                    

Sd/- 

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER