Haryana

Karnal

CC/298/2016

Munish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Narender Sharma

16 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                      Complaint No.298 of 2016

                                                      Date of instt. 29.09.2016

                                                      Date of decision 16.04.2018

 

Munish Kumar (age about 28 years) son of Shri Nafe Singh, resident of village Koer, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal, Haryana (Mob. No.98969-65311).

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. M/s Micromax Informatics Ltd., 21/14-A, Phase II, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi-110028 (Phone no.011-40790000).

2. M/s Sharma Communication, Bus Stand, Nigdhu, Sub Tehsil Nigdhu, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal (Haryana), Mob. No.98135-46940.

3. M/s Aditya Communication, Shop no.610, Mohan Nagar, near Aggarsain Chowk, Pipli Road, Kurukshetra.

      

                                                                    ..…..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

      Sh. Anil Sharma………Member

               

 

 Present   Shri Narinder Sharma Advocate for complainant.

                   OPs no.1 and 3 exparte(though Sh. Ashwani Popli Adv.)

                   Shri Maninder Singh Advocate for OP no.2.

                  

ORDER:                     

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that on complainant purchased one mobile set of Micromax-E 455 with IMEI no.911438702265026, 911438702665027 on 16.12.2015 for Rs.11000/- from the OP no.2 having warranty of one year. The OP no.1 was the manufacturer of the said mobile set and OP no.3 was the authorized service centre of the company. In the month of 10.05.2016, the said mobile set was turned out of order and its function stopped to work properly due to some technical defect. The complainant approached the OP no.3 for repair of the mobile set. The official of the OP no.3 making some repair work and returned the mobile set to the complainant in the month of June 2016 but the same problem occurred in the mobile set and then again on 15.06.2016 complainant approached the OP no.3 for repair of the mobile set. OP no.3 kept the mobile set for repair but despite best efforts the defect could not removed by the OP no.3. Then complainant requested the OPs for replacement of the defective mobile set with new one but the OPs did not pay any heed to his request. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OPs no.1  and 3 appeared and the case was fixed for filing written statement. On 15.09.2017 when the case was fixed for filing written statement and last opportunity was granted but none has appeared on behalf of OPs no.1 and 3 hence exparte proceeded are initiated against them by the order of this Forum dated 15.09.2017.

3.             OP no.2 appeared and filed its written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction; locus standi; maintainability; bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and cause of action. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant has made an complaint with regard to malfunction in the said handset and then OP no.2 alongwith complainant has visited the OP no.3 and then officials of OP no.3 has removed the default in the handset but after some time complainant again approached the OP no.2 and complained about the defect in the handset and then OP no.2 sent the complainant to OP no.3 for removal of the defect but as per version of complainant this handset is not working properly after repeated repairs. It is further submitted that OP no.2 cooperate with complainant in all respect, whereas the complainant is having knowledge about the terms and conditions of the OPs and OPs no.1 and 3 are liable for any fault in the said handset, if required and the OP no.2 has no concern/liability with regard to the said original handset manufactured by OP no.1 as the same has been handed over to the complainant at the time of purchase in original and after making necessary inspection. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 26.02.2018.

5.             OP no.2 led no evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

7.             From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone Micromax-E 455 on 16.12.2015 for Rs.11000/- from OP no.2. It is alleged by the complainant that in the month of May 2016 the mobile stopped working due to some technical defect. The complainant approached the OP no.3 to resolve these defects within warranty period, but the OP no.3 did not resolve the same. The complainant has also filed his affidavit in support of his allegations. The copy of the documents Ex.C2 to C5 clearly shows that the mobile set was having network problems during warranty period. It is pertinent to mention here that OP no.2, produced no evidence but filed written statement wherein OP no.2 admitted about the mal-functioning of the mobile set in question and approaching with the complainant to OP no.3. It is also admitted by OP no.2 in his reply that the complainant again contacted about mal-functioning and this time he gave the contact number of OP no.3 and the complainant himself went to the OP no.3. From these facts, it is clear that the mobile set in question was having defects and the grievance of the complainant was not resolved by OP no.3. It is further necessary to mention here that OPs no.1 and 3 did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte, hence the evidence of the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged. In these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the mobile set in question of the complainant was defective and the grievance of the complainant has not been resolved by the OP no.1 and 3. Hence, the OPs no.1 and 3 are deficient in providing services to the complainant.

8.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs no.1 and 3 to replace the mobile set in question with new one of the same make and model. However, it is hereby made clear that if the same make and model of the phone as purchased by the complainant is not available with the OPs no.1 and 3 then the OPs no.1 and 3 are liable to pay Rs.11,000/- to the complainant the cost of the mobile set in question. The OPs no.1 and 3 are further directed to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 16.04.2018

                                                                       

                                                                       President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                        (Anil Sharma)

                            Member