Punjab

Jalandhar

CC/336/2014

Karan S/o Sh Anil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sachin Sharda

20 Jan 2015

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Ladowali Road, District Administrative Complex,
2nd Floor, Room No - 217
JALANDHAR
(PUNJAB)
 
Complaint Case No. CC/336/2014
 
1. Karan S/o Sh Anil Kumar
R/o H.No.W.J. 22,Basti Gujan
Jalandhar
Punjab
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/s Micromax Informatics Ltd.
21/14A,Phase-II,Naraina Industrial Area Delhi-110028,through its MD/CEO
2. KGN Telecom
Shop No.15,4th Floor,Goal Market,through its Managing Director.
Ludhiana
Punjab
3. M/s Gopal Telecom
EH-198,Shop No.2(GF)Civil Lines,G.T.Road,Near Gujarat Palace,through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager
Jalandhar
Punjab
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Jaspal Singh Bhatia PRESIDENT
  Jyotsna Thatai MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
Sh.Sachin Sharda Adv., counsel for complainant.
 
For the Opp. Party:
Opposite parties No.1 and 3 exparte.
Opposite party no.2 given up.
 
ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.336 of 2014

Date of Instt. 24.09.2014

Date of Decision :20.01.2015

Karan son of Anil Kumar R/o H.No.W.J.22, Basti Gujan, Jalandhar City.

 

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Micromax Informatics Ltd, 21/14A, Phase-II, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi-110028 through its MD/CEO.

 

2. KGN Telecom Shop No.15, 4th Floor, Goal Market, Ludhiana city through its Managing Director.

 

3. M/s Gopal Telecom, EH-198 Shop No.2(GF), Civil Lines, GT Road, Near Gujarat Palace, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner/Manager.

 

.........Opposite parties

 

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.Sachin Sharda Adv., counsel for complainant.

Opposite parties No.1 and 3 exparte.

Opposite party no.2 given up.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties on the averments that the opposite party No.1 is engaged in manufacturing/marketing of mobile handsets in India. The opposite party No.2 is the dealer of the opposite party No.1 at Ludhiana and opposite party No.3 is one of the authorized service station of the opposite party No.1 at Jalandhar. On 15.10.2013, the complainant purchased one mobile handset from opposite party No.2 bearing description-A110 Q Canvas @ Plus 911314102850495 amounting Rs.10,800/- by paying the necessary cash amount, vide bill No.560 dated 5.10.2013. The said handset was supplied/manufactured by opposite party No.1. The said handset started giving trouble to the complainant due to some malfunction in its operating system. The said handset without any command used to restart/reboot thereby causing loss of valuable time, network problem, battery low problems, charging, speaker and headset problem. The said defects caused a lot of inconvenience and the complainant was made to put unwarranted efforts to operate the said handset. Many times complainant has to go to opposite party No.3 for these defects since the purchase of the mobile from opposite party No.2. Again in the months of August the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 i.e 30.8.2014 and apprised it about the said defect. The opposite party No.3 initially did not bother to accede to the request of the complainant and tried to evade the complainant on one pretext or the other and told the complainant that the worker who can inspect the problems in on leave so he should come after two days. Later on the opposite party No.3 entered a job sheet dated 30.8.2014 intentionally without depicting the problem of rebooting and network problem and only depicting charging and ringer problem on the pretext that they do not have column for this problem in their job sheet but will cure the same. The complainant got back the phone on 3.9.2014 from the employees of opposite party No.3 on the pretext that they have cured all the defects and gave the handset back to the complainant. Only after few days of the alleged service by the opposite party No.3, the complainant again faced the problem of rebooting, network problem, charging, speaker and headset. The complainant on 8.9.2014 again approached opposite party No.3 alongwith the said handset. The opposite party No.3 issued a job sheet dated 8.9.2014. On 10.9.2014, the complainant again approached the opposite party No.3 for getting back the said handset. The opposite party No.3 told the complainant that the said handset is required to be sent to the company due to some inherent defect which can not be cured by the opposite party No.3 and assured the complainant that the handset will be repaired soon and it will remain in brand new condition. The complainant reached the office of opposite party No.3 to take delivery but opposite party No.3 refused to deliver the said handset on the pretext that it is still having some inherent defect and it will take few more days to cure the same and till today opposite party No.3 has not been able to cure the said manufacturing defect. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the handset i.e Rs.10,800/-. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

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

3. Opposite party No.2 was given up by learned counsel for the complainant by making statement in this regard on 12.12.2014.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of document Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant.

6. Complainant purchased the mobile handset in question on 5.10.2013 vide retail invoice Ex.C1 for Rs.10,800/-. It was having one year warranty. Ex.C2 is warranty card. During the warranty period the handset of the complainant developed various defects and firstly he gave the handset to the service centre of the company i.e opposite party No.3 vide job sheet dated 30.8.2014 Ex.C3 and then again on 8.9.2014 vide job sheet Ex.C4. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that opposite parties No.1 and 3 have failed to rectify the defect in the mobile handset and same is still lying in the custody of opposite party No.3. Opposite parties No.1 and 3 have not come present to contest the claim of the complainant. So from the un-rebutted evidence adduced by the complainant, it stand proved that mobile handset in question purchased by him was defective and opposite parties No.1 and 3 have failed to rectify the defect in it.

7. Consequently, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.1 and 3 are directed to either give new mobile handset of the same make and model to the complainant in lieu of old one or to refund its price i.e Rs.10,800/- to him. The complainant is also awarded Rs.2500/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

 

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

20.01.2015 Member President

 
 
[ Jaspal Singh Bhatia]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Jyotsna Thatai]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.