DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 418 of 3.10.2016

                                      Decided on:                    27.9.2017

Sukhwinder Kumar, resident of H.No.524, Street No.10, New Bishan Nagar, Near Kali Kamli Gurudwara, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Messers Mobile Tech. B-1, Ranjit Plaza, Adjoining Hotel Jivan Plaza, Bhupindra Road, Patiala through concerned officer.
2. Micromax House 90-A, Sector 18, Gurgaon, through its Managing Director.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                       Sh.Vinay Vatrana, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                      Opposite party No.1 ex-parte.

                                       Sh.Vipan Sharma,Advocate, counsel

                                      for opposite party No.2.                                             

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM  GUPTA,  MEMBER

1. The complainant purchased one mobile phone make Micromax Canvas , E-481, vide bill No.2298 dated 2.2.2016 , for a sum of Rs.11,500/- from A-one Communication, Patiala. It is averred that on 18.5.2016, the said mobile phone stopped working and the complainant approached OP no.1 i.e. the service centre of the company and deposited the mobile phone with it. After a few days OP no.1 returned the repaired mobile phone to the complainant. Again the said mobile phone stopped working and the complainant  handed over the mobile phone to Op no.1 on 8.6.2016, 15.6.201`6 and 14.7.2016.After repeated failure on the part of the OP to repairthe same, the mobile phone has been lying with the OP since 14.7.2016.The complainant visited the OP several times but to no use. On 17.8.2016, the complainant got served a legal notice to the OPs but the OPs failed to respond to the legal notice. As such the complainant underwent a lot of harassment at the hands of the OP. The problem occurred in the mobile phone during warranty and failure on the part of the Op to rectify the problem amounted to deficiency in service on its part. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986.
2. On notice , OP no.1 did not appear despite service and was thus proceeded against exparte. Whereas OP no.2 appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. In its reply OP no.2 after denying all the allegations made in the complaint prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.After filing written version, OP no.2 failed to lead the evidence despite availing many opportunities and ultimately its evidence was closed by order.
3. The complainant in support of his evidence has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to 17 and closed the evidence.
4. The complainant filed written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and also gone through evidence on  record.
5. Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice, whereby, the complainant purchased the mobile phone on 2.2.2016. On 15.3.2016, the said mobile phone stopped working and started giving network + out going problems and the complainant deposited the same with Op no.1 vide job sheet i.e. Ex.C9. OP no.1 rectified the problem but again the mobile phone started giving network + mike problems and the complainant got the mobile phone deposited with OP no.1 on 19.5.2016 vide job sheet i.e. Ex.C10. After repairing the same OP returned the mobile phone to the complainant but the problem could not be rectified. It again started giving drop network and no out going problems, and the complainant again deposited the mobile phone with OP no.1 on 8.6.2016 vide job sheet Ex.C11, then on 15.6.2016 vide job sheet i.e. Ex.C12 and after that on 14.7.2016 vide job sheet i.e. Ex.C13. Since 14.7.2016, the said mobile phone has been lying with OP no.1 who has neither rectified the problem not returned the mobile phone to the complainant. These days, mobile phone is the basis necessity of every human being and in the present case, the mobile phone of the complainant  has been lying with OP no.1 since last 14 months which amounted to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on  its part.
6. As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.11,500/-, the same being the price of the mobile phone to the complainant. Ops are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses.Order be complied by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules.Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:27.9.2017                

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER