DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

Consumer Complaint No.303 of 04/08/2016 Decided on: 11/09/2019

Amarjeet Kumar aged about 35 years son of Sh. Munni Lal, R/o Street No.12, Rishi Colony, Patiala.

                                                                                                            ….Complainant

                                            Versus

1. M/s Punjab Electronics, Rose Garden to Arya Samaj Road, Patiala, through its Proprietor/ Partner.

2. M/s Ganesh Electricals, ( authorized Service Center Micromax), 37-C Mansahia colony near 21 No. Phatak Railway road, Patiala through it Proprietor/ Partner.

3. M/s Micromax Informatics Ltd. Plot No.21/14, Block A, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110028 through its MD/GM/CEO.

4. The Managing Director/ General Manager, M/s Apps Daily Solutions Pvt. Ltd., D3137-39, Oberoi Garden Estates, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai-400072.

                                                                                                            ….Opposite parties

Complaint U/S 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member

Sh. B. S. Dhaliwal, Member

ARGUED BY:

                        Sh. L. S. Sandhu Adv. counsel for the complainant.

                        Opposite parties No.1 to 4 ex-parte.

ORDER

B. S. DHALIWAL, MEMBER

1. This complaint is filed by Amarjeet Kumar (here-in-after referred as complainant) u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (here-in-after referred as Act) against M/s Punjab Electronics & Ors. (here-in-after referred as opposite parties).

2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that complainant had purchased one Micromax Q450 full Touch mobile phone bearing IMEI No.911432550517406 from OP No.1 vide No.6997 on dt.23/07/2015. The complainant had also purchased an insurance policy from the OP No.4 which is valid for the period of one year from the date of purchase of the mobile phone i.e. 23/7/2015 to 23/7/2016.

3. It is contended that in the month of October 2015 the screen of the mobile phone of complainant had been totally damaged and complainant had approached the OP in the month of October 2015 and OPs have suggested the complainant that mobile phone will be repaired through online and also advised the complainant to contact the Micromax helpline number and they will directly pickup the mobile phone from his address. As per advise of the OPs, complainant had informed to the Micromax company through online and call to the Micromax care number in the month of November 2015 and got registered complaint regarding the damaged mobile phone but after registration of the complaint the OPs No.3 & 4 had not contacted the complainant due to the malafide intention. Complainant kept waiting for collection of the mobile phone by them.

4. It is also contended that complainant had again approached with OP No.2 for the repair of the mobile phone in the month of May 2016 but he had denied to take and repair of the mobile phone and give note that, “please note that this model is replacement model by micromax. Customer has to process it through non cashless process. He has to call at Micromax careline number. Micromax will directly pickup from his address. When OPs No.2 to 4 had failed to discharge their duties and liabilities towards complainant then complainant approached OP No.1 with the problem occurred in the mobile phone. The same has been ignored by the OPs which is against the law and violation of consumer rights. Moreover, OP No.1 have sold the defected mobile phone to complainant which amounts to deficiency of service. Due to these reasons, complainant has suffered a mental agony, tension, harassment and humiliation.

5. It is also alleged that complainant has also sent legal notice dt.04/07/2016 to the OPs through his counsel but OPs have neither replied to this legal notice nor refunded the amount paid by the complainant.

6. On this background of these facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint for direction to the OPs to replace the defective mobile or refund the amount of Rs.16,800/- along with interest @ 24 % and Rs. 10000/- as compensation.

7. Upon notice none appeared for OPs, hence were proceeded against ex-parte.

8. Ld. Counsel for the complainant provided opportunity to adduce evidence.

9. In support of the case of the complainant, ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered in to evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant along with documents Ex.C-1 copy of Invoice, Ex.C-2 copy of mobile Protection, Ex.C-3 Copy of legal notice, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-7 original postal receipts, Ex.C-8 handwritten documents and closed the evidence.

10. We have carefully perused the complaint, gone through the evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments addressed by the ld. Counsel for the complainant.

11. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has purchased a Micromax-0450 Model phone bearing IMEI No.911432550517406 on 23/07/2015 for an amount of Rs.16,800/- vide bill No.6997 (Ex.C-1) from OP No.1. Simultaneously he had also purchased Insurance (Ex.C-2) for Rs.999/-. OPs were under obligation for smooth functioning of the said phone and to remove the defect (s) if any occurred. The record showed that within few months from the date of purchase of the phone it started giving trouble as its screen was damaged. The complainant approached the OPs by one way or the other but none paid heed to his request (s), as such OPs failed to discharge duties and liabilities towards the complaint. At one stage OP No.2 suggested the complainant vide Ex.C-8 that this model is a replacement model and Micromax customer care has to be contacted on their care line number and they will directly pickup the phone. Complainant has gone through this process but without any success. Ultimately Legal notice was sent to the OPs but they neither bothered to respond to the notice nor taken appropriate steps expected from them to redress the grievances of the complainant. The defect in the phone was inherent and that was why the defect was developed within few months of its purchase. It speaks the volumus of bad quality of the phone in question so much so it became unfit for use. The complainant knocked at everydoor steps of the OPs but fall flat on thire deaf, ears and they remained unmoved, impliedly accepting supply of defective equipment (Phone) by the OPs. Net conclusion is that there was a manufacturing defect in the phone in question and the complainant made every possible endeavour to attend to his complaints which were deliberately ignored by the OPs and thus it not only amounts to deficiency in service but also construed as indulging in unfair trade practice.

12. When the complainant has approached the OPs for repair / replacement and the later should have acceded to the request of the complainant and not driven the complainant to file the present complaint. It could have avoid unnecessary harassment and mental torture to him. As such, complainant is entitled to the replacement of the product or refund of its price with compensation.

13. The evidence of the complainant remained unrebutted. It is established principle that the whole purpose of pleading is to give fair notice to each party of which the opponent's case is and to ascertain with precision the point(s) on which the parties agree and those on which they differ. The purpose is to eradicate irrelevancy. The complaint is a concise statement of facts and if no reply is filed to the complaint, the averments made there are deemed to have been admitted. No amount of proof can substitute pleadings, which are the foundation of the claim of the parties. The opposite party did not appear before this Forum despite service and presumption of service was raised and it was proceeded against ex-parte. Thus, the evidence adduced by the complainant remains unrebutted. In view of this all the averments made in the complaint are deemed to have been admitted by the opposite party and no adverse inference is to be drawn against it. The contention of the complainant are supported by sworn affidavit and there is no reason to dis-believe them in its totality.

14. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation and compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and further OPs are directed to refund of Rs.16,800/- i.e. Price of the product to the complainant.

15. Compliance of the order be made within period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

16. The complaint could not be decided in the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases.

17. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned.

PRONOUNCED

DATED: 11/09/2019

                                      B. S. DHALIWAL                                   INDERJEET KAUR

                                                 MEMBER                                                  MEMBER