DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 278 of 20.7.2016
Decided on: 23.02.2017
Mohindermohan Singh son of S. Harnam Singh resident of H.No.10, Green Lehal, Patiala, Passey Road, Patiala ( Mobile No.96461-19064).
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Pixel & Bytes, IOA Complex No.69, RH Road, Chennai through its authorized signatory.
2. Micromax Informatic Ltd., Micromax House, 90B, Sector 1-B, Gurgaon-122015 through its authorized signatory.
3. M/s Ganesh Electronics Ltd., SCO 27, Ist Floor, City Center, Near 22 No.Phatak, Bhupindra Road, Patiala now 137, Manshaia Colony, Patiala
Present Address: Micromax Care Centre, Ranjit Plaza, B-1, Basement adjoining Hotel Jiwan Plaza, Bhupindra Road, Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.K.S.Rajpal,Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Complaint against OP No.1 filed, being not pressed
Opposite Parties No.2& 3 ex-parte.
ORDER
SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER
- The complainant purchased one Micromax A 300 Canvas Gold-White Mobile phone having IMEI No.911338901259061 from Op No.1 vide invoice No.11763 for an amount of Rs.17,500/- on 10th February,2015. It is averred that from the very beginning the mobile phone was having the problem of 4204 Cellular Access (VSM), no service of 4905 display colour issue and the complainant was facing the said problem. The complainant approached Ops No.1&2, who directed him to approach OP no.3. Accordingly the complainant contacted OP No.3 on 19.10.2015 and deposited the mobile phone with Op No.3 and Op No.3 issued a job card mentioning the problem in the job card. The complainant approached Op No.3 many times but to no use. Op No.3 failed to rectify the defect till the filing of the complaint by the complainant and even today the mobile phone is in the custody of Op no.3.As the complainant was facing difficulty without the mobile phone, he was compelled to purchase one Galaxy A8(4G) Samsung Smart Café for his personal use for Rs.25000/- on 11.4.2016. The complainant also sent a numbers of e-mails to OPs No.1&2 but the OPs failed to respond to the e-mails of the complainants.
- The complainant also got served a legal notice to the OPs through counsel on 13.6.2016 but the OPs did not respond to the legal notice. The complainant visited the office of OP no.3 on 10th June 2016 requesting it to either refund the entire consideration amount or to handover the mobile set in proper working condition. The complainant also requested that if that was not possible on its part then OP No.3 should replace the mobile phone with a new one of the same company and same model. But Op No.3 refused to accede to the request of the complainant. The said illegal action of the OPs amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,(for short the Act),1986.
- On notice, OPs No.2&3 failed to appear to contest the claim of the complainant and were thus proceeded against ex-parte.
- The complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C16 and his counsel closed the evidence.
- The complainant filed written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and also gone through the evidence on record.
- Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice whereby the complainant purchased the mobile phone from Op No.1 for an amount of Rs.17,500/- on 10.2.2015.Ex.C2 is the copy of the job sheet vide which, the complainant deposited the mobile phone with Op No.3 on 19.10.2015. Since 19.10.2015, the mobile phone has been lying with Op No.3 who has neither rectified the problem nor returned the mobile phone to the complainant. Ex.C4 and Ex.C5 are the e-mails sent by the complainant to the O.Ps. whereas Ex.C6 to Ex.C14 are the e-mails sent by the O.Ps. to the complainant. Ex.C15 is the copy of the legal notice.
- In the present case, the problem occurred in the mobile phone during warranty period and the OPs were bound to rectify the same which it failed to do. Moreover, since 19.10.2015, the mobile phone is lying with Op No.3.Almost 16 months have passed but Op No.3 has not rectified the problem. All the more, failure on the part of the O.Ps to contest the claim of the complainant shows the indifferent attitude of the OPs to redress the grievance of the complainant. The OPs were deficient in service in not redressing the grievance of the complainant.\
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint with a direction to OPs No.2&3 to replace the mobile phone of the complainant with a new one of the same make with requisite warranty and if that is not possible to refund an amount of Rs.17,500/- to the complainant. OPs No.2&3 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant and to pay Rs.3000/- as cost of litigation. Order be complied by OPs No.2&3 within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the record room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED: 23.2.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
