BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.102 of 2016
Date of Instt. 08.03.2016
Date of Decision: 31.10.2017
Chetan Chadha son of Sushil Chadha resident of NC-230, Kot Kishan Chand, Jalandhar, Punjab.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Micromax Informatic Ltd. Micromax House, 90-B, Sector- 18, Gurgaon-122015 through its partner/chairman/director.
2. M/s Micromax Informatic Ltd. B-82, Mayapuri, Industrial Phase- I, New Delhi-110064 through its Incharge/Manager/Prop.
3. NFINITY Enterprises-BIJ Khasra No.631, Phirni Sadak, Village Bijwasan, Near CISF Camp, Delhi through its partner/chairman/Director.
4. Micromax Service Center, M/s Gopal Telecom, EG-198, Shop No.2(GF) Civil Lines, GT Road, Near Gujrat Palace, Jalandhar.
5. M/s Gopal Service Centre, Shop No.32, 2nd Floor, Jagdambay Complex, Phagwara Gate, Jalandhar through its Incharge/Manager/Prop.
….….… Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. Karan Kalia, Adv Counsel for the complainant.
OP No.1, 2, 4 and 5 exparte.
OP No.3 given up.
Order
Parminder Sharma (Member)
1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant purchased one mobile of the company Micromax Canvas Spark i.e. from OPs No.1 and 2, Item Code:DB 3068759, Order No.6255118721;16/54331 dated 13.05.2015, through OP No.3, online. The complainant received the invoice No.S2CBCE/15-16/54331 dated 13.05.2015, from OP No.3. After the purchase of the said mobile, it became out of order. The complainant handed over the same to the approved service centre i.e. OP No.5, vide job sheet No.90202-0615-17496569 on 21.06.2015. The service centre i.e. OP No.5 returned the same to the complainant on first week of August, 2015. Even after the receipt of the said mobile, the same was not again working properly. The complainant again handed over the said mobile to the OP No.5, vide job sheet No.90202-0815-1849649 dated 11.08.2015. The complainant contacted the OP No.5, but the same was found locked continuously since 03.10.2015. The complainant called the OPs through their customer care telephone No.1860 500 8286 & 1800 3000 7977 many times, but to no effect. It was informed by the OP No.4 to contact the OP No.5, but the call was not picked up by the said OP No.5. Infact the OP No.5 was found locked by the complainant.
2. The complainant got recorded the complaint to OP No.5 on telephone No.1800 3000 7977 on 27.10.2015, vide complaint No.MMX 2710151433433, but no action has been taken by the OPs. Even the mails sent to the OPs by the complainant would become futile. The OP is having good reputation in the mobile market but it is strange that after a period of few days, the mobile of the complainant became out of order and inspite of handing over the same to the OPs, the mobile has not been returned after doing necessary repair to the satisfaction of the complainant, though more than three months have been passed. That OP is bound to remove the defective mobile under the warranty period but the OP has failed to do so, this illegal act and conduct of selling the defective mobile to the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice and also amounts to deficiency and negligence of services on the part of the OPs and further the complainant served a legal notice to the OP, but all in vain and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay compensation for mental harassment to the complainant to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and further OPs be directed to refund the price of the mobile i.e. Rs.5655/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase till its realization and the complainant is also entitled for litigation expenses of Rs.5500/- and the complainant is also entitled for refund of the miscellaneous expenses, incurred for filing the present complaint.
3. The counsel for the complainant himself suffered a statement on 12.05.2017, whereby the complaint against OP No.3 was withdrawn.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the remaining OPs i.e. OP No.1, 2, 4 and 5, but all the OPs despite service, failed to appear and as such, they were proceeded against exparte.
5. In order to prove his exparte claim, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith certain documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and closed the exparte evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also scanned the case file very minutely with the able assistance of learned counsel for the complainant.
7. After considering the over all factum as put before us by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant, Chetan Chadha purchased a mobile Mircomax Canvas Spark for an amount of Rs.5655/-, vide invoice Ex.C2. The said mobile was delivered to the complainant online at Jalandhar, it was purchased from OP No.1 and 2 and delivery service was provided by the OP No.3, but after purchasing the said mobile, it was running properly for a few days and thereafter, it started giving some problems and accordingly, the complainant approached to the service centre i.e. OP No.5 and deposited the mobile set on 21.06.2015 and after repairing the same, the mobile set was returned to the complainant by the OP No.5 in the month of August, 2015, but the mobile phone was not working properly and again the complainant deposited the said mobile with the service centre i.e. OP No.5 on 11.08.2015 and thereafter, neither the mobile phone was returned to the complainant nor OP No.5 opened the shop of service centre and as such, there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1, 2, 4 and 5.
8. The case set up by the complainant is not rebutted by any of the OP and as such, it is established that the allegations made by the complainant remains un-rebutted and un-challenged and therefore, we have no earthly ground to discard the version of the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not mentioned the appropriate role of the OP No.4, no doubt the mobile was purchased from OP No.1 and 4 and OP No.5 is a service centre and complaint against OP No.3 has been already withdrawn, as per version of the complainant, the mobile phone was deposited with the service centre i.e. OP No.5, but till today, the same is not returned after repair or without repair, it is an admitted fact that the service centre is running under the supervision of manufacturing firm and if any fault is committed by the service centre, then the liability can be fastened to the manufacturing firm and similarly, in this case, the mobile was deposited with the service centre i.e. OP No.5, who issued a job sheet, which is available on the file Ex.C-3 and even legal notice Ex.C-4 was served to the OP No.1 and 2 as well as OP No.5 and postal receipts are also available on the file Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-9 and certificate obtained from the postal department are Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-13, whereby it is certified that the registered notice was delivered to the OP No.1 and 2, but despite knowing the fact that the mobile phone of the complainant is lying with the OP No.5, the manufacturing firm OP No.1 and 2 did not bother to take any action on the complaint of the complainant and as such, it is established that the mobile phone of the complainant is not returned by the OP No.1, 2 and 5, for which the complainant is entitled to get it returned, after repair, for not returning the mobile cause a mental and physical agony and harassment to the complainant. So, accordingly we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.
9. In the light of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP No.1, 2 and 5 are directed to return the mobile phone make Micromax Canvas Spark to the complainant after repairing, in a working condition and further, OP No.1, 2 and 5 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant and also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order, failing which the OP No.1, 2 and 5 will be liable to pay interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs.25,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
31.10.2017 Member President
