BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.157 of 2016

Date of Instt. 05.04.2016

Date of Decision :24.06.2016

Jaswinder Singh aged about 43 years son of Jaswant Singh R/o 195/9, Preet Nagar, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.R.B.Enterprises, C/o Bahri Electronics, Central Town Market, Jalandhar through its Prop./Partner/Authorized Representative.

2.M/s Gopal Telecom, EH-198, Shop No.2(GF), Civil Lines, Near Gujarat Palace, Jalandhar-144001 through its Prop./Partner/Manager/ Authorized Representative.

3.Micromax Informatic Ltd., Micromax House, 90-B, Sec.18, Gurgaon (Haryana)-122015 through its Managing Director/Director/ Authorized Representative.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Mrs. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Opposite parties exparte.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as Ops) on the averments that the complainant purchased a Micromax mobile handset from OP No.1 on 01.01.2016 for a sum of Rs.6900/- with warranty of one year. The said mobile set became defective after two months from the date of purchase as it became out of order with main problem of battery not charging. Complainant approached OP No.2, authorized service centre for rectification of the defect in the mobile handset and handed over the same to OP No.2 vide job sheet dated 1.3.2016. OP No.2 told the complainant to collect the mobile set after seven days. When after seven days, complainant went to take the mobile handset from OP No.2, the official of OP No.2 told the complainant that the handset could not be repaired and the complainant should come after 20 days and when after 20 days, complainant visited OP No.2, they told the complainant that the handset is sent to company for replacement as same is not repairable. Thereafter, complainant visited OP No.2 so many times but the OP No.2 neither repaired the mobile set of the complainant nor returned the same to the complainant nor replaced the same with new one and the defected mobile handset is still lying with OPs No.2 & 3. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to replace the handset with new one. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Notice of this complaint was given to the OPs but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and closed evidence.

4. We have heard the complainant and minutely gone through the record.

5. From the averments of the complaint and the evidence produced on record by the complainant, it stands fully proved on record that complainant purchased a Micromax mobile handset from OP No.1 on 01.01.2016 vide invoice Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.6900/- with warranty of one year. The said mobile set became defective after two months from the date of purchase as it became out of order with main problem of battery not charging. Complainant approached OP No.2, authorized service centre, for rectification of the defect in the mobile handset and handed over the same to OP No.2 vide job sheet dated 1.3.2016 Ex.C2. OP No.2 told the complainant to collect the mobile set after seven days. When after seven days, complainant went to take the mobile handset from OP No.2, the official of OP No.2 told the complainant that the handset could not be repaired and the complainant should come after 20 days and when after 20 days, complainant visited OP No.2, they told the complainant that the handset sent to company for replacement as the same is not repairable. Thereafter, complainant visited OP No.2 so many times but the OP No.2 neither repaired the mobile set of the complainant nor returned the same to the complainant nor replaced the same with new one and the defected mobile handset is still lying with OPs No.2 & 3. Complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs No.2 & 3 qua the complainant.

6. Complainant proved his averments in the complaint through his affidavit Ex.CA and he also proved on record the retail invoice Ex.C1 and the service job sheet Ex.C2. The evidence produced on record by the complainant remain unrebutted and unchallenged as none appeared on behalf of the OPs despite service to contest the complaint filed by complainant nor any person on behalf of OPs dared to file affidavit to rebut the evidence produced on record by the complainant. So, from the entire above discussion, it stands fully proved on record that the mobile set of the complainant is not repairable and it has been lying with OP No.2 since 1.3.2016 and the OP No.2, authorized service centre, of OP No.3 failed to rectify the defects in the mobile set and also failed to return the same to the complainant which fully prove that the mobile set of the complainant is not repairable. As such, OPs No.2 & 3 are liable to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of same make and model.

7. Consequently, we allow the complaint exparte with cost and OPs No.2 & 3 are directed to replace the mobile set of the complainant with new one of the same make and model or in the alternative to refund its price i.e. Rs.6900/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which OPs No.2 & 3 shall be liable to pay interest @ Rs.9/- % per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. The OPs No.2 & 3 are also directed to pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Bhupinder Singh

24.06.2016 Member Member President