BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.379 of 2014
Date of Instt. 29.10.2014
Date of Decision :04.05.2015
Phool Chand aged about 45 years son of Ram Sagar, R/o H.No.3, Gazi Gulla, Near Petrol Pump, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Rakesh Telecom, Parbhat Nagar, Gazi Gulla, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Representative.
2. M/s Gopal Service Centre, Shop No.36, Silver Plaza Complex, Sanjog Palace, Sodal Road, Jalandhar through its Prop/Partner/ Authorized Representative.
3. Micromax Informatics Ltd, 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Managing Director/Authorized Representative.
.........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.Mohinder Jit Kumar Adv., counsel for complainant.
Sh.Manuj Aggarwal Adv., counsel for OP No.3.
Opposite parties No.1 and 2 exparte.
Order
J.S Bhatia (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant purchased a mobile phone model Micromax A-111 bearing IMEI No.911307204165812 & 911307204468810 for Rs.11500/- vide bill No.374 dated 8.2.2014 from opposite party No.1. One year warranty was given for above said mobile handset. Within warranty period, on 13.8.2014 the above said handset became out of order. The main problem was no charging/totally dead. The complainant brought the above defect into the notice of opposite party No.1 who advised the complainant to approach their authorized service centre/opposite party No.2. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 and handed over the defective mobile handset to opposite party No.2 on 13.8.2014. The opposite party No.2 checked the mobile handset and found the problem of battery no charging/totally dead. The opposite party No.2 kept the defective mobile handset with them for repair and gave a job sheet dated 13.8.2014 to complainant. The opposite party No.1 (Opposite party No.2) told the complainant to collect the handset after two days. After two days when the complainant went to collect the mobile handset, the opposite party No.2 told the complainant that its problem could not be removed due to some major fault and further gave two days more time to collect the handset. When after next two days the complainant went to take the handset, the opposite party No.1(Opposite party No.2) told the complainant that it could not be repaired due to their busy scheduled and further told the complainant to come after one week. When after one week the complainant went to take the handset, the opposite party No.1(Opposite party No.2) told the complainant that the said handset has been sent to company and further told the complainant to come after some days. When after some days the complainant went to opposite party No.2 to take the handset, to the great surprise of complainant, the opposite party No.2 told the complainant that the said handset was sent to company which had been misplaced by them somewhere and the same is not traceable despite their best efforts. The complainant requested the opposite party No.2 to give new handset in place of the original handset lost by them but the opposite party No.2 refused to give new handset in lieu of the lost handset. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the handset and to give him new handset in place of the lost handset with fresh warranty of one year or in the alternative to return its price. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 and 2 did not appear and as such they were proceeded against exparte. However, opposite party No.3 appeared through Sh.Manuj Aggarwal Advocate and filed memo of appearance on 23.1.2015. The opposite party No.3 did not file any written statement inspite of number of opportunities afforded to it for this purpose and as such opposite party No.3 was debarred from filing any written statement.
3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed evidence
4. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the opposite party No.3.
5. The complainant purchased the mobile handset from opposite party No.1 for Rs.11,500/- vide retail invoice dated 8.2.2014 Ex.C1. According to complainant during the warranty period on 13.8.2014 the said handset became out of order and it was deposited with opposite party No.2 vide job sheet dated 13.8.2014 Ex.C2 but inspite of visiting the service centre number of times the mobile handset has not been returned to him and on the other hand, it has been told to him that the mobile handset was sent to company and it has been misplaced and is not traceable. In support of this version, the complainant has filed his affidavit Ex.CA and job sheet Ex.C2. The opposite party No.2 has not come present to rebut the allegations of the complainant. The opposite party No.3 although appeared through counsel but did not file any written statement rebutting the allegations of the complainant. So from unrebutted evidence adduced by the complainant, his version stand proved.
6. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.2 and 3 are directed either to give new mobile handset of the same make and model to the complainant in lieu of old one which is stated to have been misplaced or lost or in the alternative to refund its price i.e Rs.11,500/- to him within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is also awarded Rs.3000/- in lump sum 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
4.5.2015 Member Member President
