BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.269 of 2015

Date of Instt. 18.06.2015

Date of Decision :14.08.2015

Sahil Kochher, aged about 26 years son of Ashwani Kochher R/o 236, Baba Balak Nath Nagar, Near Verka Milk Plant, Jalandhar City.

..........Complainant Versus

1. M/s Micromax, Micromax House, 90-B, Sector-18, Gurgaon-122015, Haryhana.

2. SP-Shree Communication, C/o Shop No.5, G.S.Bajwa Complex, Opp.Friend Bakery, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar, Punjab.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Opposite parties exparte.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant has purchased one mobile phone make Micromax, Model-Knight-A-350, IMEI No.911357700042833/ 911357700073036 from the company through online shopping for Rs.20,000/- vide Airway Bill No.C00189460631, Shipped on 19.3.2014, received through Red Express Courier. The said mobile phone is under warranty period. The said mobile phone became out of order and was deposited with its service centre i.e opposite party No.2 on 2.4.2015. Inspite of his repeated visits to the service centre, the phone was not returned back to him by the concerned service centre. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for refund of the price of the mobile handset and further compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties did not appear and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed evidence.

4 We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person.

5. The complainant purchased the mobile handset online and according to complainant, the phone became defective during warranty period and was deposited with opposite party No.2 service centre on 2.4.2015 vide service job sheet Ex.C2. The complainant contended that inspite of his repeated visits, the service centre did not return back the mobile handset to him. In support of his case, the complainant has placed on record service job sheet dated 2.4.2015 Ex.C2. In the job sheet, in the column of repair warranty remarks-UW i.e under warranty is mentioned. Further in the column of repair warranty-Yes is mentioned. So, as per service job sheet Ex.C2, the mobile handset was still under warranty. It is not case of the complainant that the mobile handset was having any manufacturing defect. The complainant has not examined any expert witness to prove the same. Moreover, the complainant has already used the mobile handset for about one year. In case, there was any manufacturing defect in the mobile handset then it would not have worked for such a long period. Complainant further contended that he has already purchased new mobile handset and refund of price should be ordered. Since the complainant has already used the mobile handset for about one year, as such no case for refund of price or replacement of the mobile handset with new one is made out. During warranty period, the liability of the manufacturer is to repair the mobile handset and only where the mobile handset is not repairable, replacement or refund is justified. It is not case of the complainant that the mobile handset is not repairable.

6. So in the above circumstances, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties are directed to give the mobile handset of the complainant to him in fully repaired and working condition free of cost. However, the complainant is awarded 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 Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

14.08.2015 Member President