BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.593-14

Date of Institution:14-11-2014

Date of Decision:20-02-2015  

Sandeep son of Sh.Rakesh resident of 149-A, Avtar Avenue Medical Enclave, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. M/s.Mobile Spot through its Prop/Principal Officer authorized person to receive the summon,  shop No.9, First Floor Nehru Shopping Complex, Lawrence Road, Amritsar.
2. M/s.Simran Enterprises, through its Officer/ Incharge/ Authorized person to receive the summon, 7, First Floor, Ranika Bagh Opposite District Library, Near Petrol Pump, Amritsar.
3. M/s.Micromax Informatics Limited, 21/144 Phase II Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi through its Principal Officer.       

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Present: For the Complainant: In person.

              For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Munish Kohli, Advocate

              For the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3: Sh.Ajay Shanker, Adv.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Sandeep under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased Micromax Mobile Set No.A120 Canvas 2 colour black (colours) IMEI No.9113671030-46174, from Opposite Party No.1 vide bill No. 1278dated 1.7.2014 for Rs.9500/-. Complainant alleges that after some time, the Mobile Set developed defects and was not functioning properly and the complainant contacted to Opposite Party No.1 regarding the defect in the Mobile Set in question. Opposite Party No.1 referred that the complainant should contact the Opposite Party No.2 and as per the advice of Opposite Party No.1, the complainant deposited the Mobile Set in question with Opposite Party No.2 for its repair on 11.9.2014, but till date, the Opposite Party No.2 did not return the Mobile Set in question inspite of so many visits made by the complainant and requested to Opposite Party No.2 that he should return the Mobile Set after repair, but the Opposite Party No.2 is avoiding the matter with one pretext or the other.  Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the Opposite Parties to return the Mobile Set duly repaired or in alternative refund the costs of Mobile Set alongwith interest @ 24% per annum.   Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party No.1  appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 has been unnecessarily dragged into litigation, just to harass and pressurize them, otherwise, there is no merit in it against the Opposite Party No.1. The warranty of the mobile set is to be provided by the company service provider. Moreover, it is clearly mentioned on the bill that warranty or guarantee of the Mobile Set is to be provided by Company Service Provider and not by Opposite Party No.1 because after sale of the Mobile Set, the service centre is responsible for its repair and the Opposite Party No.1 is not responsible for the same.   While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite Parties No.2 & 3  appeared  through their counsel Sh.Ajay Shanker, Advocate. Sh.Ajay Shanker, Advocate has given statement in this Forum on 19.12.2014 that Opposite Party No.3 is ready to refund the price value of Rs.9500/- of the Mobile Set subject to return of the original job sheet, original bill alongwith the accessories in possession of the complainant. Sh.Nitin Madaan, Advocate, counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 also made statement on behalf of Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 that he does not want to file written version on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and the case may be disposed of as per the statement dated 19.12.2014.  On the other hand, Sh.Sandeep complainant has made statement that he does not accept this offer of the Opposite Parties.
4. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties as well as statements of both the parties.
5. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties  and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased Mobile Set from Opposite Party No.1 vide Invoice dated 1.7.2014 for Rs.9500/-. Said Mobile Set became defective and did not function properly. The complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 the authorized service centre of Micromax Company i.e. Opposite Party No.3 and deposited the said Mobile Set with Opposite Party No.2 for its repair on 11.9.2014 vide customer job card dated 11.9.2014, but Opposite Party No.2 neither repaired the Mobile Set in question nor returned the same to the complainant despite so many visits made by the complainant. The complainant   submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
6. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that they are only the dealer and sold the Mobile Set in question to the complainant whereas it is the company who has to repair/ replace the Mobile Set of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the warranty. As such, Opposite Party No.1  has no concern with the repair etc. of the Mobile Set in question.
7. Whereas Sh.Ajay Shanker, Advocate appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and got recorded his statement that Opposite Party No.3 Micromax Company  is ready to refund the price of the Mobile Set i.e. Rs.9500/- to the complainant, subject to return of the original  job sheet, original bill and accessories in possession of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3  also got recorded his statement that he does not want to file written version on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and as such, the case may be disposed of as per the statement dated 19.12.2014.
8. After hearing the complainant as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties, we have come to the conclusion that the Mobile Set in question purchased by the  complainant became defective within warranty period and he deposited the said Mobile Set with Opposite Party No.2 the authorized service centre of Micromax Company i.e. Opposite Party No.3 on 11.9.2014 vide customer job card dated 11.9.2014 and since then, the Mobile Set in question has been in possession of Opposite Party No.2 who neither repaired the said Mobile Set nor returned the same to the complainant and the ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 got recorded his statement on 19.12.2014 that Opposite Party No.3 is ready to refund the price value of the Mobile Set i.e. Rs.9500/- to the complainant, subject to return of original job sheet, original bill alongwith accessories in possession of the complainant, which fully proves that Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 have admitted  that the Mobile Set in question is not repairable, rather they have sold the defective Mobile Set in question to the complainant.
9. Consequently, we dispose of the complaint with the directions to Opposite Party No.3  to refund the amount of the Mobile Set in question to the complainant i.e. Rs.9500/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Opposite Party No.3 is also directed to pay the compensation  to the tune of Rs.2500/- to the complainant.  Opposite Party No.3 shall also pay Rs.1000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.    Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 20/02/2015                                                             (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                   President

                                                                       (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)

                                        Member

                                (Anoop Sharma)

hrg                                                                            Member