Advocate for the complainant- None.
Advocate for the O.Ps 1,2 & 3 - None.
Date of filing of the case -02.12.2016
Date of order. – 20.09.2017
JUDGMENT.
Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
The case of the complainant is that, he had purchased a Micromax D-320 mobile handset from O.P. No.1, on dt.20.12.2015 on payment of consideration amount of Rs 3,600/- .It appears from the complaint petition that during warranty period the said mobile handset was defunct for which the complainant approached the O.P for repairing and as per the advice of the O.P.No.1 the complainant requested the service center O.P.No.2 for repairing. The O.P. No.2 demanded Rs 800/- for repairing of the handset and the complainant paid Rs 500/- for repairing cost, but the mobile handset was not repaired, nor was handed over to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
2. Although notice was served on O.P.No.3, neither he appeared nor proceeded with the case and hence he was set exparte vide order dated 11.07,2017. O.P.No.1 and 2 have filed their version separately. According to O.P.No.1, the service was provided out of warranty as there was no warranty seal in the mobile handset of the complainant.
3. According to O.P.No.2, there are several defects in the mobile including in PCBA liquid damage, hence the handset was not fully repaired.
4. Both parties are absent on the date of hearing of the case. Perused the pleadings and material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the Micromax D 320 mobile phone from O.P.No.1 on dt. 20.12.2015 and paid Rs 3,600/- vide retail invoice No.1144 dt. 20.12.2015. It is also an admitted fact that the said mobile phone was warranted for a period of one year and during the warranty period the said mobile phone was found defective. The O.P.No.2 service center has also admitted that he had received Rs 500/- from the complainant towards repairing charges.
5. The complainant has not produced any evidence to show that, whether there is any inherent defect in the mobile phone or not. Simply the complainant has pleaded that there is defect in the on and off system of the mobile phone. However the O.P.2 in his version has submitted that, besides liquid damage there are so many defects in the mobile phone. Hence it is believed that, there is inherent defect in the mobile phone which is not repairable. The O.Ps have ;not produced any evidence to show that they provided proper service to the complainant and the mobile phone is a defect free one.
6. With the material available on record, it is concluded that the mobile phone of the complainant is not repairable and hence replacement of the same will meet the ends of justice. Hence ordered.
ORDER.
The O.Ps are directed to replace the defective mobile phone of the complainant with a defect free mobile phone of the same model and brand within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Further the O.P.No.2 is directed to refund Rs 500/- to the complainant within the said period .The complainant is remaining absent from the very beginning of the case and is also absent on the date of hearing, hence there shall be no order as to cost.
Accordingly the case is disposed off.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM TODAY THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017.
(S.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
