Haryana

Panchkula

CC/274/2015

KULDEEP SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SHREE KRISHNA ENTERPRISES. - Opp.Party(s)

DEV RAJ CHAUDHARY.

20 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                  

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	274 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	08.12.2015
Date of Decision	:	20.05.2016

                                                                                          

Kuldeep Singh s/o Sh.Gulzar Singh, R/o village Moginand, District Panchkula, Haryana.

 

                                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       M/s Shree Krishna Enterprises, DSS No.321, Sector-20, Panchkula through its Proprietor.

2.       M/s Abacus Systems, SCO No.824, 1^st Floor, NAC Manimajra U.T., Chandigarh through its Proprietor/Partner.

3.       The Micromax Informatics Limited, 90-B, Sector-18, Gurgaon, Haryana-122015 through its Managing Director.

                                                                                    …. Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

                            

For the Parties:     Mr.Dev Raj Chaudhary, Adv., for the complainant.

                             Ops No.1 & 2 already ex-parte.

None for the OP No.3.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. In brief, the complainant had purchased a Micromax Model Canvas A-096 mobile from Op No.1 vide bill No.068 (Annexure C-1) dated 19.05.2015 for an amount of Rs.6000/- with the assurance that the mobile set was of best quality and having latest features. After few days, the mobile started giving problem of hanging, charging and display etc. The complainant approached the OP NO.1 who advised to approach the service center. The complainant approached the Op No.2 who after inspecting the mobile assured the complainant that the problem in the mobile set would be rectified and the same would be returned back to the complainant. On 03.11.2015, the complainant received the mobile but the problem was not rectified. On 07.11.2015, the complainant again approached the Op No.2 who assured the complainant that the problem would be rectified after some times and issued a job card dated 07.11.2015 (Annexure C-3) and since then the mobile was lying with the Op No.2. Thereafter, the complainant requested the Op No.2 many times to repair the mobile but they did not give any satisfactory reply. The complainant issued legal notice dated 10.11.2015 but to no avail. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the Ops No.1 and 2 through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the Ops No.1 and 2. It is deemed to be served and the Ops No.1 and 2 are proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 15.01.2016.
3. The Op No.3 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the complainant approached the authorized service center (Op No.2) on 02.09.2015 after 4 months of purchase and second time on 07.11.2015 for power does not switch on and for sensor problem. It is submitted that the OP No.3 never denied providing its services to the complainant as assured under the terms of the warranty. It is submitted that the OP No.3 offered to refund the price of mobile to the complainant but he refused to accept the offer. It is submitted that the complainant has failed to produce any documentary evidence on record to support his allegation of defect in the handset. It is submitted that the complainant has failed to adduce any expert report to support his allegation of defect in the handset. It is submitted that the mobile of the complainant was repaired by the OP No.2 but the complainant instead of collecting the handset file the present complaint. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  
4. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the Op has made a separate statement in which he stated that his written statement might be read as his evidence and did not want to file any evidence on behalf of Ops and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.
6. A careful perusal of the file reveals that undoubtedly, the complainant a Micromax Model Canvas A-096 mobile from Op No.1 vide bill No.068 (Annexure C-1) dated 19.05.2015 for an amount of Rs.6000/- with the assurance that the mobile set was of best quality and having latest features. After few days, the mobile started giving problem of hanging, charging and display etc. The complainant approached the Op No.2 i.e. authorized service center who after inspecting the mobile assured the complainant that the problem in the mobile set would be rectified and issued a job sheet dated 02.09.2015 (Annexure C-2) with remarks “power switches off”. On 03.11.2015 i.e. after three months, the complainant received the mobile but the problem was not rectified. On 07.11.2015, the complainant again approached the Op No.2 who assured the complainant that the problem would be rectified after some times and issued a job sheet dated 07.11.2015 (Annexure C-3) with remarks “sensor not working” and since then the mobile was lying with the Op No.2. Thereafter, the complainant requested the Op No.2 many times to repair the mobile but they did not give any satisfactory reply. When all the frantic efforts made by the complainant, failed to rectify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs. The Op No.3 in their written statement also accepted that the complainant approached the service center for repair and they also offered the refund of price of mobile to the complainant. The Op No.3 has also not appeared at the time of arguments to defend its case. Therefore, the act of the Opposite Parties in not rectifying the defective mobile handset and offered for refund the price of mobile is deficiency in service on their part, which certainly has caused immense, mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
7. Evidently, the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.6000/- to purchase the handset having faith in the brand to facilitate himself and not for moving the Service Centre and then to this Forum for justice in the absence of proper service provided by the Opposite Parties.
8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Ops are directed as under:-

(i)      To refund the cost of mobile i.e. Rs.6,000/- to the complainant alongwith 9% interest from the date of purchase till realization.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

20.05.2016       S.P.ATTRI                   ANITA KAPOOR         DHARAM PAL

                         MEMBER          MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT