BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.298 of 2014

Date of Instt. 26.08.2014

Date of Decision :13.03.2015

H.R.Soni, Advocate son of Ram Dass R/o H.No.595/10, Near Raghunath Mandir, New Shaheed Babu Labh Singh Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Micromax Mobiles, Micromax House, 90-B Sector 18, Gurgaon, PIN 122015, through its Mg.Director/Authorized Person.

2. RK Mobile House, Near Gurudwara Dewan Asthan, Central Town, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner.

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

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.VK Attri Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Manuj Aggarwal Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 & 3.

Opposite party No.2.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties on the averments that the opposite party No.1 is head office of Micromax Mobiles and the opposite party No.2 is authorized dealer of the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.3 is authorized service station of the opposite party No.1. The complainant purchased a Micromax Mobile Model A67 vide invoice No.731 dated 25.9.2013 of Rs.5650/- from the opposite party No.2, who is the authorized agent/retailer of the opposite party No.1. In the month of April 2014, the complainant found some defect in the above said mobile as the same used to restarts/reboots and the same was not working properly. Accordingly the complainant had given his mobile set for warranty repairs to the opposite party No.3 vide job sheet dated 2.4.2014. The opposite party No.3 did not bother for making any repair and till date the said mobile is lying with the opposite party No.3. The complainant many times requested the opposite party No.3 to return the said mobile with necessary repair or replace the same but the opposite party No.3 has not paid any heed to the request of the complainant. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace his mobile handset. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice opposite parties No.1 & 3 appeared and filed a written reply pleading that at the outset it is submitted that the present complaint is a gross abuse of the process of law, totally uncalled for and not maintainable in law. The complainant has not disclosed the correct facts in the present complaint and tried to mislead the Forum by making false, frivolous and baseless allegation against the answering opposite parties. The complainant purchased the mobile handset on 25.9.2013 and deposited the handset with the authorized service centre of the answering opposite parties on 2.4.2014, after using the handset for more than six months. The authorized service centre of the answering opposite parties repaired the handset and the complainant never turned up to collect the handset from the authorized service centre. The fact is that the handset is ready with the opposite party No.3 and the opposite party No.3 called several time to the complainant but the complainant did not turn up to collect the handset. The handset is ready with the authorized service centre of the answering opposite parties and the complainant can collect the same from authorized service centre i.e opposite party No.3, after producing necessary original documents. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Opposite party No.2 did not appear inspite of notice and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the present parties.

7. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the mobile handset in question from the opposite party No.2 vide retail invoice dated 25.9.2013 Ex.C1 for Rs.5650/-. According to the complainant, the mobile handset became defective and same was deposited with opposite party no.3 i.e service centre of opposite party No.1 and till date it is lying with it. Ex.C2 is service job sheet issued by opposite party No.3 at the time of receiving the mobile handset from the complainant. The complainant purchased mobile handset on 25.9.2013 and according to him it became defective and was deposited with opposite party on 2.4.2014. So it means that handset was working properly for more than six months. In case there was any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset then it would not have worked for six months. However, it is in the written reply as well as affidavit Ex.OPA of Saurabh Kumar of opposite party No.3 service centre that it has repaired the handset and the complainant never turned up to collect the same. It is further in his affidavit that the fact is that the handset is ready with opposite parties and opposite parties called several times to the complainant but complainant did not turn up to collect the handset. During warranty the liability of the manufacturer or the service centre is to rectify the defect, if any, free of cost. According to opposite parties No.1 and 3 the mobile handset of the complainant has been repaired but complainant has not come present to collect the same.

8. So in the above circumstances, the complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties No.1 and 3 are directed to give the mobile handset of the complainant in fully repaired condition to him within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and for this purpose the complainant is directed to visit the opposite party No.3. Further the complainant is granted Rs.2000/- 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 Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

13.03.2015 Member Member President