BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.46 of 2015

Date of Instt. 12.02.2015

Date of Decision :20.04.2015

Tejinder Bhatia son of Kalyan Singh R/o 324, Chhoti Baradari Part-II, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s New Bahri Electronics through its Partner/Prop., 6-B, Model Town Market, Jalandhar-144003.

2. M/s Shree Communications, Shop No.5, GS Bajwa Complex, Opposite Friends Bakery, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar.

3. Micromax Informatics Ltd, through its Managing Director, Micromax House, 90-B, Sector-18, Gurgaon-122015.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.AK Arora Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Umesh Ohri Adv., counsel for OP No.1.

Sh.Akash Batra Auth.Rep. for OPs No.2 & 3.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that he purchased a mobile handset of Micromax A94 manufactured by opposite party No.3 vide invoice dated 22.5.2014 for Rs.8000/- from opposite party No.1. The said mobile handset stopped functioning properly after few months of purchase and the said fact was brought to the knowledge of opposite parties No.1 and 2 by the complainant. The complainant deposited the said mobile handset with the opposite party No.2 on 4.9.2014 with the problem of power switch off and remarks set dead. The opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that handset will be repaired soon but the same has not been repaired till date despite of repeated requests and reminders. The handset in question purchased by the complainant has manufacturing defect and opposite party No.2 being the authorized service centre of opposite party No.3 has failed to cure the defect in the said mobile handset, therefore the complainant is liable to receive full amount of the said handset i.e Rs.8000/-. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the mobile handset to the complainant besides making payment of price of the newly purchased handset by him. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and on 27.3.2015 Sh.Akash Batra, Authorized Representative of opposite parties No.2 and 3 made a statement that they are ready to give the new mobile handset to the complainant and they are not to file any written statement and not to tender any evidence. Written statement on behalf of opposite party No.1 was dispensed with.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed evidence

4. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant and authorized representative of contesting opposite parties No.2 and 3.

5. The opposite parties No.2 and 3 became ready to give new mobile handset to the complainant only after filing of the present complaint by the complainant. The fact that opposite parties No.2 and 3 are ready to give new mobile handset clearly suggest that the old mobile handset of the complainant is having some manufacturing defect and is beyond repair.

6. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted against opposite parties No.2 and 3 and they are directed either to replace the mobile handset of the complainant with new one of the same make and model or in the alternative refund its price i.e Rs.8000/- to him within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is also awarded Rs.2000/- 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

20.04.2015 Member Member President