BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:  Complainant in person.

                        OPs exparte.

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.                      In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Micromax Mobile (Model A57) handset for Rs.4,999/- from opposite party No.3 vide bill dated 5.12.2012 (P-1).  At the time of purchase, the complainant was told that the handset was having one year replacement guarantee. 

                   According to the complainant, after two months the handset stopped working.  Accordingly, the complainant approached opposite party No.3 for replacement of the handset who flatly refused and advised him to approach opposite party No.2 for repair.  Thereafter the complainant approached opposite party No.2 who prepared job sheet dated 25.3.2013 (P-2) mentioning various defects.  After repairs, the handset was returned to the complainant with the assurance that there would be no problems in future.  However, soon after, the handset again started giving the same problems. Therefore, the complainant again visited opposite party No.2 and job sheet dated 27.4.2013 (P-3) was prepared.  The opposite party retained the handset with it and assured to remove the defects.  Thereafter, the complainant kept on visiting opposite party No.2 and even wrote letter dated 7.5.2013 (P-4), however, neither the handset was repaired nor it was replaced.   According to the complainant, the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed. 

2.                      Notice was sent for the service of opposite party No.1 through registered AD letter on 16.8.2013.  However, neither the same was received back undelivered nor any acknowledgement was received.  As the period of more than 30 days had passed, therefore, it was presumed that opposite party No.1 had been duly served.  None appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 on the date fixed. Hence it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.9.2013.

3.                      Notices were sent for the service of opposite parties No.2 & 3 through registered AD letter on 26.9.2013.  However, neither the same were received back undelivered nor any acknowledgements were received.  As the period of more than 30 days had passed, therefore, it was presumed that opposite parties No.2 & 3 had been duly served.  None appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.2 & 3 on the date fixed. Hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 4.11.2013.

4.                      We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the documents on record.

5.                      Annexure C-1 is the copy of the bill dated 5.12.2012 vide which the complainant purchased the mobile handset in question from opposite party No.3 for Rs.4,990/-. 

6.                      The case of the complainant is that he was assured that the handset carried one year replacement guarantee and soon after purchase, the mobile set started giving problems.  Accordingly, on the advice of opposite party No.3, the complainant approached the service centre (opposite party No.2) for repair of the mobile handset, where job sheet dated 25.3.2013 (P-2) was prepared mentioning therein various defects viz. no incoming calls, network failure, auto disconnect while calling and force close error.  Though opposite party No.2 returned the handset to the complainant, after repairs, and assured that no problems would occur in future, however, the handset again developed defects and had to be taken to opposite party No.2.  While retaining the handset with it for carrying out the repairs, opposite party No.2 prepared job sheet dated 27.4.2013 (P-3).  According to the complainant, thereafter he visited opposite party No.2 many times, and also wrote letter dated 7.5.2013, but, neither the handset was repaired nor it was replaced.  According to the complainant, the mobile set in question is suffering from some inherent defects which cannot be repaired and, therefore, handset needs to be replaced with a new one. The complainant has also filed his duly sworn affidavit in support of his averments in the complaint.

7.                      The Opposite parties did not appear to controvert the averments of the complainant. Therefore, the stand of the complainant goes un-rebutted and the present complaint deserves to succeed.  

8.                      In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed as under :-

                                 i.            to replace the defective handset in question with a brand new one of the same make and model

                               ii.            to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.

                              iii.            Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation.

9.                      This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at No.(ii) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

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

Announced

06.11.2013.

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

hg