BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no. 132 of 2014
Date of Institution: 29.9.2014
Date of Decision: 5.9.2016
Shri Bhupender Singh aged about 32 years son of Shri Ravinder Nath, resident of Gali No.3, Kirti Nagar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
- M/s Shree Communication Jain Market, Sadar Bazaar Sirsa, through its Proprietor/ authorized signatory.
- Micromax Informatics Ltd. 21/14A, Phase-II, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi.
- Ebay India Pvt. Ltd., 14th Floor, North Block, R-Tech Park, Western Express Highway, Gorigaon, East, Mumbai.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Shri Sumit Soni, Advocate for complainant.
Sh.Ravinder Monga, Advocate for Opposite parties no.1 and 2.
Opposite party no.3 exparte vide order dated 13.1.2015.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that complainant had made an order to purchase a new Mincromax Mobile bearing Model No.A116 Canvas HD through internet on 18.5.2013 and its price was to be paid after delivery. On 22.6.2013 complainant received the mobile and he had made payment of Rs.13,880/- through credit card. The op no.1 is the authorized care centre and op no.2 is the manufacturer. One year warranty of the mobile was given to him. After use, the mobile started giving troubles very soon such as battery backup, charging, automatically switched off, voice problem and software problem etc. The complainant immediately contacted with op no.1 and made it aware about the defects in the mobile who stated that it is not a matter of worry rather there is only software problem and after updating software same was returned to him. But after few days, the mobile again started giving the same problems upon which complainant approached to op no.1 who kept the same with him and stated that there is a manufacturing defect and same is to be sent to op no.2 for repair and asked the complainant to wait for a period of about 15 days. However, thereafter the complainant made many visits to op no.1 and also made telephonic calls but op no.1 kept on lingering the matter. After lapse of more than two months, op no.1 telephonically called the complainant and handed over a completely old micromax mobile of same model whereas the mobile of the complainant was a new one and was not the same handset which was handed over to op no.1 for repair. The complainant requested the op no.1 to hand over the same mobile after getting the same repaired but op no.1 flatly refused to hand over the same mobile to the complainant, which he had deposited with op no.1 for repair rather misbehaved with him. The complainant telephonically contacted with op no.2 and enquired about his mobile and came to know that his mobile has already been repaired and has been sent to op no.1. The op no.1 in order to cause wrongful loss to complainant has not provided the same. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon ops No.1 & 2 on 4.8.2014 requesting either to refund the price of the mobile or to replace the same with new one but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, Ops no.1 and 2 appeared and contested the case by filing reply, whereas OP No.3 was proceeded exparte vide order dt. 13.1.2015. It is replied by Ops no.1 and 2 that complainant approached to Op no.1 with minor problem of battery back up and voice problem connected with the software problem. Upon receiving the mobile set, the same was sent to manufacturing laboratory. The problem was removed and set was handed over to the complainant with full satisfaction. But the complainant instead receiving the mobile set remained adamant for replacement with new one. The op no.1 forwarded his request which was accepted and an upgraded model was received from the company. But the complainant refused to accept the genuine offer rather remained adamant for upgraded model. Though, the demand of complainant was not genuine, but giving prerogative to the complainant, op no.1 requested the company in this regard which was accepted and upgraded mobile was offered to him as per his demand. The complainant alongwith his friend approached to care centre and after examining the set refused to receive the same rather stated that he will receive the mobile set as per his own desire. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops no.1 and 2.
3. By way of evidence, the complainant produced affidavit of his brother Lalit Mohan Ex.C1, his own affidavit as Ex.C2, legal notice Ex.C3, job card Ex.C4 and invoice dated 20.6.2013 as Ex.C5. Whereas, Ops No.1 & 2 have produced affidavit of Ex.R1.
4. We have heard ld. counsels for parties and have gone through the record carefully.
5. Through the affidavit of complainant Ex.C2, affidavit of his brother Ex.C1 and job sheet on the record as Ex.C4, it is clearly established on record that mobile set was having problem of automatically switched on off, internet and software problem since very beginning and said problems again existed despite repair. The complainant has also proved by way of his affidavit and affidavit of his brother that opposite parties No.1 & 2 were offering an old mobile to him and ops No.1 & 2 have taken a long time for redressal of grievance of complainant but have failed to redress his grievance. Hence, present complaint stands allowed and Ops No.1 & 2 are directed to replace the mobile of the complainant with a new one of similar description which shall be free from any defect, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case the company has stopped manufacturing the mobile of same description, then they will give a mobile of another model of same price/ amount which the complainant incurred at the time of purchase of above said mobile. Ops No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to comply this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Dated:05.09.2016
President
Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
