Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 414.
Instituted on : 19.07.2017.
Decided on : 15.10.2018.
Naresh Kumar s/o Dharampal Aged-50 years, R/o H.No.747/31, Azad Nagar, Rohtak, Mobile No.9355039416.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- V.I.Telecome Shope No.114 D, Near Gajab Restaurant, Sec.-56 HUDA Market, Gurgaon-122002 through its proprietor.
- M/s SAI SECURITY SYSTEMS, NEAR Malabar Guest House, Green Road, Rohtak-124001, through its Manager.
- Manager Customer Relations, Micromax Informatics Ltd., Micromax House 90-B, Sec-18, Gurgaon-122005.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Sandeep Kaushik, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite party No.1 given up.
Opposite party No.2 exparte.
Sh.Piyush Sharma Advocate for opposite party No.3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased a mobile phone of Micromax company on dated 12.01.2017 from the opposite party No.1. That the above said mobile started creating trouble from 04.06.20-17 i.e. switch off automatically and the motherboard of the mobile was replaced and the mobile was returned on 09.06.2017 after repairs but the mobile phone kept working well only till 19.06.2017 and it again started creating problems like no connectivity, Wi-Fi, GPS & W-LAN but despite repeated repairs by the OP and change of motherboard twice, the mobile did not work properly as it was having manufacturing defect. That there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs by selling the defect mobile set to the complainant. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.5300/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.300000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses etc. as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No.1 was given up by the complainant vide his statement dated 24.05.2018. Opposite party No.2 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.09.2017 of this Forum. Opposite parties 3 in its reply has submitted the complainant was duly informed the damage i.e. not covered under the warranty and was informed the costs of having the same repaired. That complainant has made only bare averments with respect to defect/manufacturing defect in mobile handset and failed to produce any document/evidence in relation thereto. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No.3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/1, document Ex.RW1/2 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Perusal of the documents reveals that the complainant had purchased the mobile set on 12.01.2017 for a sum of Rs.5300/-. As per job sheet Ex.C2 dt. 07.07.2017 there was some defect of connectivity, Bluetooth connection etc., as per Ex.C5 dated 09.06.2017, there was a problem of ‘power does not switch on’ and thereafter as per Ex.C6 to Ex.C8, there were problems of connectivity etc. which shows that despite repeated repairs, mobile phone could not be repaired by the OPs. As the defect appeared during warranty period and the same was not repaired by the OPs which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and they are liable to refund the price mobile set.
6. Accordingly the complaint is allowed and we hereby direct the opposite party No.3 i.e. manufacturer to refund the price of mobile set i.e. Rs.5300/-(Rupees five thousand three hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 19.07.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. As per the statement made by the complainant on dated 11.10.2018 the mobile set in question is already with the service centre.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
15.10.2018. ................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
