DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. CC 263 of 8.7./2016

                                      Decided on:   28.12.2016

Malkiat Singh S/o Kulwant Singh R/o Village Deelwal District Patiala P.O.Punjabi University, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. M/s Mobile Tank B-1,Ranjit Plaza adjoining hotel Jeewan Plaza, Bhupindra Road, Patiala. Mobile No.99152-57277, through its Proprietor.
2. Micromax House 9—A, Sector 18, Gurgaon 122015 Haryana Mobile No.91124-4811000 and Mobile No.91124-4811099 through its Proprietor.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member          

ARGUED BY:

                                       Sh.Malkiat Singh, complainant in person.

                                      Opposite Parties No.1&2 ex-parte.

 ORDER

                                    SMT. NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER

1. The complainant purchased one Micromax Q-412, mobile phone from M/s Bansal Mobile Traders, Bahera Road, Patiala on 22.3.2016. It is averred that right from the first day of the said purchase, the mobile phone was giving problem and ultimately on 6.6.2016, the complainant deposited the said mobile phone with Op No.1 but the defect in the mobile phone could not be rectified. Again on 23.6.2016, the complainant deposited the mobile phone with OP No.1 but OP no.1 entered the date 23.6.2016 on the old job sheet dated 6.6.2016.After this, the complainant lodged a complaint telephonically to the Customer Care, Noida, from where he came to know that the mobile phone had been returned to the complainant after rectification of the problem, whereas the complainant never received back the mobile phone.The complainant lodged a complaint vide complaint No.2806165000628 and the OP issued a job sheet dated 28.6.2016 whereas the complainant had deposited the mobile phone with OP no.1 on 23.6.2016. Since 23.6.2016, the OP neither rectified the defect nor returned the said mobile phone to the complainant. As a result, the complainant underwent a lot of harassment. He suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.50,000/- in his business. OP no.1 kept on lingering on the matter on one pretext or theother. Non rectification of the defect in the mobile phone by OP no.1 amounted to deficiency in service on  its part as the defect occurred during the warranty period. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act)
2. On notice, OP failed to appear despite service and were thus proceeded against ex-parte.
3. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and he closed the evidence.
4. The complainant failed to file written arguments. We have heard the complainant in person and also gone through the evidence on record.
5. Ex.C2 is the copy of the Invoice, whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone from M/s Bansal Traders and Ex.C1 is the copy of the job sheet dated 6.6.2016 and 23.6.2016.Since 23.6.2016, the said mobile phone has been lying with OP no.1, who has neither rectified the defect in the mobile phone nor returned it to the complainant. The said mobile phone was purchased by the complainant on 22.3.2016 and since 23.6.2016 it has been lying with OP no.1 who was bound to rectify the same but it failed to do so and it amounted to deficiency in service on the part of OP no.1 as the defect occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period. Moreover, failure on the part of the OPs to contest the claim of the complainant shows the indifferent attitude of the OPs to redress the grievance of the complainant.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OPs No.1&2 to replace the mobile phone of the complainant with a new one of the same make with requisite warranty and if that is not possible to refund the amount of Rs.6800/-, the same being the price of the mobile phone. OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.2000/- as costs of litigation. Order be complied by OPs no.1&2 within a period of 30days of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the record room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:28.12.2016                                                                          

                                                                                               NEENA SANDHU

                                                                                               PRESIDENT

                                                                                             NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                                             MEMBER