BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.216 of 2017
Date of Instt. 11.07.2017
Date of Decision: 07.02.2018
Vas Dev, Age 45 Years, S/o Hardial Singh, H. No.336, Guru Nanakpura (West), PO Chugitti, Jalandhar, Mob. No.97806-85275
..........Complainant
Versus
1. R.B. Enterprises C/o Bahri Electronics, Central Town Market, Jalandhar-144001, Through its Prop/Partner/Authorized Representative.
2. Sehaj Tele Care, 1st Floor, Gulati Complex, Near DLF Mall, Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar hrough its Prop/Partner/Authorized Representative.
3. Micromax Informatics Ltd. 21/14A, Phase-II, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi-110028 Through its M.D/Director/Authorized Representative.
..….…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Complainant in person.
OP No.1 to 3 exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein stated that he purchased a mobile handset, Model: E455 CANVAS NITRO 4G, IMEI No.911438701374886, vide Invoice No.R-1794 dated 04.08.2016 for Rs.9500/- from OP No.1. That one year warranty was given by OPs for the above said mobile handset. At the time of purchase, the OP No.1 told and assured the complainant that in case of any problem or defect arose in the said handset, the same would be rectified immediately by their service centre i.e. OP No.2 or the handset would be replaced, if the repair is not done satisfactory. That within a warranty period, the above said mobile handset became out of order, its network failed to work. The complainant brought the defect into the notice of the OP No.1, who directed the complainant to approach their service centre i.e. OP No.2.
2. That on 22.06.2017, the complainant handed over the above said defective mobile handset to OP No.2, who kept the same with them for repair and issued a job sheet dated 22.06.2017 to complainant. The OP No.2 told the complainant to collect the handset after three days, but after three days, when the complainant went to take the handset from the OP No.2, the OP No.2 told the complainant that the set has not been repaired due to rush to work and further told the complainant to come after next three days, when after next three days the complainant went to take the handset, the same excuse was made by the OP No.2. Prior to above the said handset became out of order in the month of January, 2017, again in February 2017, again in March 2017 and again in April 2017. The complainant handed over the handset to OP No.2 for repair from time to time in the said months. The OP No.2 told the complainant that due to Software and Mother Board problem, the handset became out of order in the said months. Although the OP No.2 quoted the complainant that the Mother Board/Software has been changed, but the problem remained same as before. Till date the above said handset is lying with the OP No.2, which they have neither repaired nor replaced. The OP No.2 has failed to rectify the defect from the mobile handset. The complainant has visited the OP No.2 several times, but despite that, the OP No.2 neither replaced nor repaired the mobile handset and as such, there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the OPs be directed to replace the mobile set with a new one or in the alternative to refund the cost of the mobile handset as per bill alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of purchase and further, OPs be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.2200/- and also be directed to pay compensation for mental harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service, OP No.1 did not come present and ultimately, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.2 appeared through his counsel Sh. Vishal Chaudhary, Adv and OP No.3 appeared through his counsel Sh. RK Bhalla, Adv, but later on, without filing written reply they again did not come present and ultimately, OP No.2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte on a different dates.
4. In order to prove his exparte claim, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex.C-1 copy of Retail Invoice and Ex.C-2 Copy of Job Sheet and closed the exparte evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also scanned the case file very minutely.
6. In order to establish that the complainant purchased a mobile handset from OP No.1, for an amount of Rs.9500/-, vide Invoice dated 04.08.2016, the copy of the said Invoice is proved on the file by the complainant Ex.C-1 and further the allegations of the complainant are that a defect was occurred in the said mobile handset in the month of January, 2017, again in February, 2017 and then again in March, 2017 and in April, 2017, but all the time, the mobile set was temporarily repaired by OPs, but actually its defect was not rectified and then in the month of June 2017, the complainant again approached to the service Centre i.e. OP No.2 for repair or replaced the said handset and accordingly, the OP No.2/Service Centre kept the said mobile set and issued a Job Sheet Ex.C-2 and defect in the mobile set has been also described in the Job Sheet Ex.C-2, but till today, the said mobile set neither repaired by the OP No.2 nor replaced the same. It is established on the file that the mobile set had not been returned by the OP No.2 to the complainant, if returned, then the signature of the customer must be taken on the Job Sheet, but there is no signature on the Job Sheet of the complainant at a relevant place. So, it is proved on the file that there is a major defect in mobile set and due to that reason, the mobile is not working smoothly and properly, which is fortified from the visits of the complainant made to the service centre in the month of January 2017, February 2017, March 2017 and then April 2017 and ultimately, deposited the said mobile set in the month of June, 2017 to the service centre i.e. OP No.2. The evidence, so led by the complainant in the shape of affidavit Ex.CA is not rebutted by the OP in any manner rather for the best known reason, the OPs despite service and appearing through their counsel, later on did not come present for filing a written reply, so, the evidence of the complainant remained un-rebutted and un-challenged and under these circumstance, we have no option except to accept the version of the complainant as to-too.
7. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with a new one of the same model and further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.7000/-, for mental harassment and also directed to pay litigation expenses, to the tune of Rs.2000/-. The aforesaid amount of compensation and litigation expenses i.e. Rs.9000/- be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order and similarly, the compliance of the replacement of the mobile set be also made within the same period, failing which the complainant will entitle to get interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing complaint, till realization. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
07.02.2018 Member President
