BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No. 233 of 2014

Date of Instt. 15.7.2014

Date of Decision :17.11.2014

Amarjit Singh aged about 27 years son of Iqbal Singh R/o NH 309-B, Gopal Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Micromax Informatics Ltd, Micromiax House, 90-B, Sector 18, Gurgaon-122015.

2. M/s Chadha Mobile House Pvt.Ltd(Mobile House), Phagwara Gate, Near Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jalandhar-144001 through their Directors.

3. M/s Gopal Telecom, EH-198, Shop No.2(GF), Civil Lines, G.T.Road, Near Gujrat Palace, Jalandhar through its authorized representative.

4. Shree Communication, Shop No.5, G.S.Baweja Complex, Opp.Friends Bakery, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar through its authorized representative.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.Lalit Kakkar Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Akash Batra on behalf of opposite party No.4.

Opposite parties No.1,2,3 exparte.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant is law abiding citizen and resident of above said address and running a tuition center. Whereas opposite party No.1 is renowned mobile manufacturer of the country, opposite party No.2 is dealer/selling partner of opposite party No.1, opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.4 are authorized service centre of the opposite party No.1. Complainant has purchased a mobile handset manufactured by opposite party No.1 and known as "Micromax Magnus A-117" having IMEI No.913348050445421 from opposite party No.2 vide bill No.42055 dated 8.11.2013 against cash consideration. Mobile set was found to be defective one, when complainant used it. This mobile set has warranty period and manufacturer has promised to repair it or replace it with new handset in case of a manufacturing defect. This handset had manufacturing defect like problems in display, touch and mother board from the very start. Complainant visited opposite party No.2 many times with the above said complaints but they ignored it on the one pretext or other and had not bothered to replace mobile. Complainant has asked opposite party No.2 to provide the address of authorized service centre of opposite party No.1 but they have frankly refused to provide the address of authorized service centre and harassed the complainant. It is a clear negligence on the part of opposite party No.2. After a great hard work and research from the website of opposite party No.1, complainant found that opposite party No.3 is working as authorized service centre of the opposite party No.1. Complainant then approached opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.3 then received the mobile from the complainant against job sheet No.N090319/ 0114/7339551 dated 3.1.2014 and assured him to rectify the defect or replace the mobile set with new set as defects seem to be manufacturing one. Opposite party No.3 returned the mobile after repair but to the sorrow of complainant defect remained the same. Complainant again approached opposite party No.3 on 6.1.2014 and opposite party again received the mobile handset for repair vide job sheet No.N090319/0114/7391678. Mobile set remained with opposite party No.3 for 25 days but defect remained the same. As complainant was fed up with the service of opposite party No.3, complainant approached call centre of opposite party at Chandigarh and they suggested complainant to approach opposite party No.4, another authorized service centre of opposite party No.1 in Jalandhar. Complainant approached opposite party No.4 and deposited his mobile vide manual job sheet No.722 on 12.2.2014 and it was returned after 20 days but defect remained the same. It is now sure that defect is manufacturing one and can not be cured without replacing handset with a new handset. As defect remained the same, complainant again approached opposite party No.4 and deposited mobile for repair vide job sheet No.821. It was again returned on 26.3.2014 with same defect. Both these job sheets were taken back by the opposite party No.4, while returning the mobile. Complainant again deposited mobile with opposite party No.4 vide job sheet No.913 dated 27.3.2014 and mobile set is still with the opposite party No.4. Complainant has approached opposite party No.4 many times but it has neither returned his mobile nor provided any new mobile as defect is manufacturing one. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the mobile with new one or in the alternative refund its price i.e Rs.14,200/-. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses and further directions to opposite parties to pay him Rs.8000/- for purchasing the second hand handset

2. Upon notice, only opposite party No.4 appeared and filed short written reply pleading that opposite party No.1/company is responsible and will decide the matter in connection with mobile handset manufactured by them.

3. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 to 3 did not appear inspite of notice and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered in to evidence affidavit Ex.CA along with copies of documents Ex. C1 to C4 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, opposite party No.4 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP4/A and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for complainant and Sh.Akash Batra on behalf of opposite party No.4.

7. The complainant is alleging manufacturing defect in the mobile handset in question. In his affidavit Ex.OP4/A Sh.Akash Batra, Prop. of opposite party No.4 service centre has stated that it is an authorized service centre and opposite party No.4 is ready to give the handset to the complainant. So opposite party No.4 i.e service centre of opposite party No.1 is ready to give new handset to the complainant. From the job sheets Ex.C-2 to C-4, it is evident that mobile handset of the complainant developed repeated defects during warranty period. In his affidavit Ex.CA, the complainant has reproduced the averments contained in the complaint. In its affidavit, opposite party No.4 has not denied the averments of the complainant.

8. So in the above circumstances, the complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.1 and 4 are directed to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one of the same make and model and in case the same model is not available then to refund its price i.e Rs.14,200/- to him. The complainant is also awarded Rs.2000/- on account of litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

17.11.2014 Member President