DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.90
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 03.07.2017
DATE OF ORDER: 12.09.2018
Sunil Kumar son of Shri Mahender Singh, resident of Village & Post Office Malkosh, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, Mobile No.95555-58536. District Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
1. M/s Prince Mobile, Hansi Gate Chowk, Bhiwani through its
proprietor. Mobile No.9813293194.
2. M/s Singh Mobile Communication, Shop No.4, 1st Floor, City Mall,
Hansi Gate, Bhiwani, authorized Service Centre of Micromax
Mobiles through its proprietor. Contact No.95182-83000.
3. Micromax Informatics Ltd (Head Office), Micromax House, 90b,
Gurgaon Sector-18, Gurgaon through its Managing Director.
……….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT,
1986.
BEFORE: - Hon’ble Mr.M.S. Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Ms. Sudesh Dhillon, Member.
Present:- Sh. Satender Ghanghas, Advocate for complainant.
OPs exparte.
ORDER:-
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he had purchased one Micromax Q385 Mobile for a consideration of Rs.5600/- on dated 26.7.2016 vide cash memo bearing No.1125 from Op No.1 , vide bill Annexure C-1. One year guarantee/warranty for all type of defects in the tablet set was given and in case of any defect the mobile set will be replaced with new one. It is alleged that after 4-5 months of its purchase, the battery of mobile set started giving hit and sometimes internet does not start and for the start of internet the mobile set has to be restart. The complainant visited to OP No.2 being the care centre of respondent company with the request to repair the same, who after checking the mobile set return the same by saying that the defects will not occurs in future. But after few days, the same problem started again in the mobile set. The complainant again approached to OP No.2 and requested to remove the defects in the mobile. The respondent No.2 after checking the mobile again returned on the assurance that it will not give any problem in future. About one month later the same problems again started in the mobile. Moreover, this time a new problem started i.e. call disconnected itself. The complainant again approached the respondent No.2 with the request to repair the same or to replace mobile set with new one, but he refused to replace the same. The copy of job sheet is Annexure C2. Hence, the complainant was deprived off from the use of the Hand Set and suffered a loss. Now, the complainant has claimed the replacement/cost of the Hand Set along with compensation and costs by way of filing present complaint.
2. That none has put in appearance on behalf of OP no. 1 & 2. So, they have proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.09.2017. Mr. S.S. Saini, Advocate was appeared for Op No.3 but on dated 11.07.2018 he stated at bar that further he has no instructions to appear on behalf of OP No.3. So, OP No.3 was also preceded against exparte.
3. In the exparte evidence, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence Annexure C-1 and Annexure C-2 alongwith supporting affidavit Annexure CW1/A and fully proved his case.
4. We have heard the arguments of the counsel and have gone through the documents on record carefully.
5. The counsel for complainant reiterated the contents of his complaint. He submitted that after the purchase of mobile handset it worked properly for 4-5 month and thereafter it starts giving problems. The complainant times and again visited to OP No.2 to rectify the problem of mobile in question but all in vain.
6. The complainant purchased the mobile handset on 26.07.2016 for Rs. 5600/- from OP no. 1 vide bill Annexure C-1. According to the contention of the complainant, his mobile handset worked properly only for 4-5 months and thereafter it starts giving problems and the OP no. 2 has not repaired the same properly and did not hear the voice of the poor customer even visiting times and again to rectify his mobile problems. Even the OPs did not bother to appear and pursue the matter before the District Consumer Forum. In this way, the behavior of the OPS are not only adamant, negligent and deficient against the poor customer (complainant) rather than also against the District Consumer Forum. Now-a-days this is the common trends, practice and motive of the companies to achieve the aims but not feels the pain of the consumers. In view the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed being found deficiency in service on the parts of OPs. The same is accordingly allowed. The opposite parties are directed as under:-
(i) to refund the amount of Rs.5600/- to the complainant
for the cost of defective mobile.
(ii) to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental
agony, physical harassment and hardship..
(iii) to pay Rs.1500/- for litigation expenses.
7. The order at serial No.(i) and (ii) will be complied by OP No.2 and 3 individually as well as severally and order at serial No.(iii) will be complied by OP No.1 only.
8. This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receiving of its certified copies, failing which the amounts at serial No.(i) and (ii) above shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation cost. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance..
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:12.09.2018. (Manjit Singh Naryal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Sudesh Dhillon),
Member
