Haryana

Ambala

CC/249/2016

Rakesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Service City - Opp.Party(s)

Keshav Sharma

27 Dec 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

Complaint no.249/2016.

Date of instt. 09.06.2016. 

                                                                        Date of Decision: 27.12.2017.

 

Rakesh Kumar son of Shri Sahib Singh, 465, Pooja Vihar near Gugga Mari, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                                                ..Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1.M/s Service City, Shop No.167/17 (FF), Part-A, near Vijay Rattan Chowk, Ambala Cantt. Haryana through its authorized signatory.

2.Micromax Informatics Ltd. 21/14-A, Phase II, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi-110028, through its authorized signatory.

 

..Opposite parties.

 

       Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                               

 

Before                        SH. D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                                    SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                       

Present:              Sh.Keshav Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

      Opposite parties are exparte.           

    

ORDER

 

                                    Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased a mobile set of Micromax company bearing IMEI/ESN No.911429303030604 / 911429303333602 through online vide invoice dated 03.06.2015 for a sum of Rs.5664/-. At the time of purchase of above said mobile the opposite party no.1 assured that in case any defect occurs in the mobile during the warranty period the same would replaced without any condition. After few months of its purchase mobile phone developed problem such as blank screen and it also went in off mode automatically. The complainant visited Op No.1 and narrated the problems which thereafter issued a job sheet dated 10.12.2015 after taking the mobile and further returned the same after about one and half month by charging a sum of Rs.1530/- from the complainant with assurance that the same would work properly. The problems were not removed and the same remained in the set in question. The OPs cannot charge any amount because the problem occurred in the set during warranty period. The complainant requested the OPs either to remove the defect or to refund the cost thereof and also sent several e-mails to them but to no effect. The complainant also got served legal notice upon the Ops but all fell on deaf ears. In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C7.

2.                          Opposite parties remained absent during the proceedings of this case and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.01.2017.

3.                Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant have been heard and the case file has been perused carefully.

4.                In order to prove his version the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Annexure CX on the case file besides producing documents Annexure C1 (legal notice), Annexure C2 (copy of e-mails), Annexure C3 (invoice), Annexure C4 (job sheet), Annexure C5 (receipt of payment), Annexure C6 and Annexure C7 (postal receipts and acknowledgment). The complainant had purchased the mobile in question on 03.06.2015 and it developed problem during warranty period as is shown in Job Sheet Annexure C4 dated 10.12.2015. The mobile in question went out of order during warranty period, therefore, it was for the OPs to get the same defect free of costs but it is strange that OP No.1 charged Rs.1530/- Annexure C5 from the complainant but the handset again went out of order, therefore, the complainant sent e-mail Annexure C2 on 03.03.2016 to Op No.2 who suggested the complainant to visit Op No.1/service centre. Thereafter, the complainant visited service centre but despite that his grievance could not be removed. The complainant has specifically pleaded that the OP No.1 had kept the mobile in question for one and half months for removing the defect but the mobile in question is still having same defects and the Ops have failed to redress his grievance. The pleadings and contentions put forth by the complainant remained unrebutted as the opposite parties are exparte. So, we have no other option but to believe the version of the complainant. From the contents of the complaint, it is proved that complainant has been harassed by the opposite parties and even he has also lost faith on the product in question.

6.                Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the cost of mobile i.e. Rs.5664/- (Annexure C3) alongwith Rs.1530/- received on account of repairing of mobile (Annexure C5)  subject to returning of mobile alognwith its accessory to the Ops by the complainant.  The Ops are further directed to pay compensation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.2000/- in lump sum to the complainant.  Order of this forum be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the awarded amount would carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.  Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned after due compliance.

ANNOUNCED ON:      27.12.2017

                        

                           

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)                                  (D.N.ARORA)

MEMBER                                                    PRESIDENT