Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/252/2018

Aman Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Ish Mahajan Adv.

11 Oct 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	252/2018
Date of Institution	:	02.05.2018
Date of Decision	:	11.10.2018

 

                                               

                                                         

Aman Singla s/o Late Sh.Anil Kumar Singla r/o H.No.3125, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.      M/s Micromax Informatics Ltd., Head Office: Micromax House, 90-B,Sector 18, Gurugaon-122015 through its Managing Director (Defence struck off vide order dated 27.09.2018).

2.      M/s Micromax Informatics Ltd., Registered Office: Block-A, Plot No.21/14, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110028 through its Managing Director.

3.      M/s Abacus Systems, Micromax Care, SCO 54, 1^st Floor, Near Post Office, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh through its authorized representative.

4.      M/s Anmol Watches & Electronics (P) Ltd., SCO 1012-1013, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh through its Authorized Representative.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:   SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by

Sh.Ish Mahajan, Adv. for the complainant

                   None for OP No.1

OPs No.2 to 4 exparte.

 

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           Briefly stated,  the complainant purchased a Micromax Mobile  phone  Model Micromax Canvas 1 vide invoice dated 15.08.2018 for Rs.6500/- from OP No.4, having warranty one year.  From date of its purchase, the mobile phone was not working properly and started giving problems i.e. hanging, software and charging issue.  He approached OP No.3 who without issuing any job sheet returned the mobile phone after installation of its software.  On 24.03.2018, the mobile again started giving the same problems and as such he landed the same with OP No.3 who issued the job sheet dated 24.03.2018 without mentioning the actual problems.  The mobile phone was returned to him after testing and installing the software without effecting the repairs.  In the month of April, 2017, he again started facing the same problems and OP No.3 issued the job sheet without mentioning the actual problems in the mobile phone. He specifically asked OP No.3 that if they could not repair the mobile handset then give him a new handset or refund its price but to no effect.  According to the complainant, he is running from pillar to post to get his grievance redressed but the OPs are not paying any heed. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           In its written statement, OP No.1 has stated that it is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for any defect/deficiency caused by its service center which is a separate independent entity and not its part. It has been pleaded that the mobile phone is liable to be sent to the testing laboratory.  It has been pleaded that the service center repaired the mobile phone to the satisfaction of the complainant and he accepted the same without any demur whatsoever.  It has been pleaded that the onus to prove the manufacturing defect was upon the complainant which he failed to lead. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.           Despite due service through registered post, the OPs No.2 to 4 failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.07.2018.
4.           Initially, Sh.Manwar Singh, Authorized Agent put in appearance on behalf of OP No.1 and filed the written reply.  Thereafter, the case was adjourned for many dates for filing the documents as mentioned in the reply and evidence by way of affidavit of OP No.1 but they did bother to file the same and as such its defence was ordered to be struck off vide order dated 27.09.2018.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
6.           In his evidence, the complainant has filed his detailed affidavit reiterating the averments as made in the complaint. The complainant has also placed on record various documents as mentioned in the complaint which support the averments made in the complaint.   OP No.3 (authorized service center of OP Nos.1 and 2) did not bother to redress the genuine complaint of the complainant despite approaching it time and again.   Besides this opposite parties No.2 to 4 chose not to appear before this Forum.  Likewise, OP No.1 did not file any evidence by way of affidavit in support of the averments made in the written statement and as such the averments made by OP No.1 in the written statement cannot be believed to be correct. Therefore, in the absence of any rebuttal from the side of the OPs, the version of the complainant, supported by the duly sworn affidavit, must prevail.  In our considered view, the OPs have committed deficiency in service by not rendering the promised services within the warranty period. 
7.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed as under ;-

1. To refund Rs.6,500/-  being the price of the mobile handset to the complainant.  
2. To pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.

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 Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall also carry interest @9% per annum from the date of the order till its actual payment besides litigation expenses.  The complainant shall hand over the mobile phone along with its accessories to the OPs on receipt of the awarded amount.

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

Announced

11.10.2018

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER