DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.641 of 2015
Date of institution: 02.12.2015 Date of decision : 01.03.2018
Mrs. Sangeeta Gupta wife of Shri Rakesh Gupta, resident of House No.686, Phase-10, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab).
…….Complainant
Vs
1. M/s. Music Point, Booth No.116, Phase-9, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab) through its authorised dealer.
2. M/s. Micromax Informatics Ltd. 21/14A, Phase-II, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi -110028 through its Managing Director/CEO/GM/Manager.
3. M/s. Future Communication, SCO 28, Ist Floor, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh through its Service Manager/Concerned Person.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: None for complainant and OP No.1.
OP No.2 and 3 already ex-parte.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant purchased one Micromax Mobile Phone Model No.A106 from OP No.1 through retail invoice dated 05.07.2014 by paying price of Rs.7,400/-, on assurance of agent of OP No.1 that the phone is of best model and latest in the market. Complainant on coming to know on 10.07.2015 that the mobile phone has 2GB ROM, was very shocked because on the box it was claimed 4GB ROM and thereafter complainant immediately approached OP No.1 for apprising about the issue of ROM of the mobile. On 15.07.2014 the mobile stopped working completely because the same was not showing any signal/network on it. So complainant was unable to make any call. As major problem developed in the mobile and as such complainant got the same checked from OP No.1, who claimed that it will be sent to service centre of OP No.1. Then OP No.1 deposited the mobile with OP No.2 on 15.07.2014. After regular follow up OP No.1 on 20.07.2014 response got that the mobile will be sent to the service centre i.e. OP No.3. Complainant was assured that after replacement of mother board, mobile will be returned back to complainant. The mobile was received by complainant on 28.08.2014, but again in December, 2014 same problem developed. On talk to OP No.3 the service centre, again mother board was replaced and mobile returned in January, 2015 to complainant. Same problem again developed on 03.05.2015 and replacement of the mother board took place and mobile returned on 23/24.05.2015. On 08.07.2015 mobile became unable to work because charging even stopped. Thereafter complainant visited OP No.3 on 09.07.2015 and asked the service engineer to get the mobile phone replaced because of patent manufacturing defect. However, OPs neglected to change the mobile and as such complainant suffered lot of mental tension, agony and harassment and that is why this complaint for replacement of the mobile with a new one. Compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- more claimed.
2. OP No.2 and 3 are ex-parte in this case.
3. OP No.1 filed reply in the shape of declaration to the effect that warranty and repair to be provided by Company’s service centre in respect of mobile in question sold by him through bill No.2280 dated 05.07.2014. Through this declaration, it is claimed that Mircomax, being manufacturer is fully responsible for defects in the mobile.
4. Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to C-4 and then closed evidence, but thereafter on application for additional evidence was filed by complainant and the same was allowed. Then after tendering additional affidavit Ex.CW-1/2, counsel for complainant closed additional evidence. OP No.1 failed to produce any evidence and as such evidence of OP No.1 was closed by order of dated 07.11.2016.
5. Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties and even oral arguments not addressed. File cannot be kept pending for long and as such by keeping in view the terms of order dated 28.02.2018, after perusing the file this complaint is disposed of through this order on merits.
6. Contents of affidavits Ex.CW-1/1 and Ex.CW-1/2 alongwith bill Ex.C-1 establishes that complainant purchased the mobile phone in question from OP No.1 on 05.07.2014 by paying price of Rs.7,400/- and that fact even has been admitted by Shri Manoj Kumar, Prop. of OP No.1. This mobile phone developed defects thrice as per unrebutted statement of complainant. Job sheet dated 04.05.2015 Ex.C-3 in this respect is also produced on record. In job sheet Ex.C-3 itself it is mentioned that the mobile was in warranty at that time. In Ex.C-3 itself it is mentioned that no access/GSM service available and as such the evidence on record establish that virtually mobile phone repaired thrice by way of replacing the mother board, but despite that the same stopped functioning repeatedly on three occasions. So in view of carrying out of these repairs by way of replacement of mother board, it has to be held that there is manufacturing defect in the mobile and that is why counsel for complainant vide suffered statement dated 08.09.2016 accepted the offer of OP No.2 for receiving of cost of handset i.e. Rs.7,400/- alongwith compensation of Rs.2,600/-. However, statement of representative of OP No.2 regarding such offer is not on the record. Even then by keeping in view the terms of order dated 08.09.2016, it is obvious that virtually offer for refund of the price amount was made. Question of making such offer arises only, if actually there would have been manufacturing defect in the mobile in question. As the mobile phone repeatedly went out of working order and as such certainly complainant entitled to refund of price amount of Rs.7,400/- from OP No.2, the manufacturer. OP No.3 is service centre and as the service to be provided by the service centre regarding warranty/guaranty clause as per endorsement recorded on the footnote of bill Ex.C-1 and as such certainly OP No.1, the seller is not liable for the manufacturing defect. Being so, complaint against OP No.1 merits dismissal, but same deserves to be allowed against OP No.2 and 3 only. As complainant suffered mental tension, agony and harassment by way of approaching service centre of OPs atleast on three occasions and as such complainant entitled to compensation for mental harassment and agony as well as to litigation expenses, which is assessed by keeping in view the sufferings of complainant as well as price of the mobile in question.
7. As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint against OP No.1 dismissed but same allowed against OP No.2 and 3 in terms that they will refund the price amount of the mobile set in question of Rs.7,400/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of order. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs. 3,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000/- more allowed in favour of the complainant and against OP No.2 and 3, whose liability held as joint and several. Payment of these amounts of compensation and litigation cost be made within 30 days from receipt of certified copy of order. In case payment of price amount of Rs.7,400/- not made within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of order, then complainant will be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from today onwards till payment, but on the amount of Rs.7,400/- only. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned.
Announced
March 01, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu) Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
