BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                            Complaint Case no.299 of  2016     

                                                          Date of Institution:    10.11.2016

                                                          Date of Decision:     19.09.2017

Anwar Alam aged about 18 years son of Shri Kurshid Alam, resident of Kirti Nagar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                                                                  ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Ridhi Sidhi Mobile’s, Opposite Arya Primary School, Sadar Bazaar, Sirsa through its Proprietor.  

2. Micromax Mobile Care Centre, M/s Shree Communication, Jain Market, Sadar Bazaar Sirsa, through its authorized person.

3. Micromax Informatic Ltd. Head Office (2.9*/5) (594 ratings) Micromax House, 90-B, Gurgaon, Sector-18, Gurgaon- 122015 through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory.

                              ……… Opposite parties.

          Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT

                   SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.

Present:           Sh. Naresh Jayant, Advocate for complainant.

       Sh. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

      Sh. Ravinder Monga, Advocate for opposite parties No.2&3.

ORDER

          In brief, case of complainant is that on 30.6.2015, complainant had purchased a new handset model Micromax Canvas Spark Q 380 from the opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.5800/- vide bill No.7705 dated 30.6.2015 with warranty of one year. After sometime, the said mobile started giving troubles of automatically switched off, earphone, heating and hanging off etc. The complainant contacted with op no.1 and

requested to remove the defects and after getting the same checked, the op no.1 asked the complainant to contact op no.2. Op no.2 had taken the said mobile from complainant with the assurance that problems shall be removed and mobile shall be handed over to him within a short period. But despite repairs of the mobile by op no.2 time and again the said problems existed in the mobile. Lastly on 10.6.2016, the complainant took the said mobile to op no.2 with the same problems. The op no.2 took the mobile and issued job sheet in favour of complainant. The complainant was asked to take the delivery of the same within a short period and accordingly the complainant took the delivery of the same but the problems are still same. As such there is manufacturing defect in the mobile. The complainant has been making rounds and rounds to op no.2 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that answering op is only a seller of the mobile of company and for all the grievances of the complainant regarding mobile in question, the op no.3 company and its service centre are liable. It is further submitted that after purchasing the mobile in question, the complainant never visited the premises of answering op. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.

3.                Ops no.2 and 3 in their joint written statement while taking certain preliminary objections asserted that complainant approached to the answering ops with a minor problem which was removed as per the terms of warranty clause. Thereafter, the complainant was enjoying his mobile without any trouble. The complainant approached on 10.6.2016 with the problem of “Power does not switch on”. The problem of mobile set was removed and same was handed over to the complainant and at that time the complainant minutely, carefully inspected and checked the functioning of the mobile and received the same with utmost satisfaction. Now the complainant is pressurizing the answering ops for replacement of the mobile which is not possible as per the terms and conditions of the company.  

4.                The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.PW/C1, copy of bill Ex. PW/C2 and copy of job sheet dated 10.6.2016 Ex.PW/C3. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit Ex.RW1/A and affidavit Ex.RW2.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.                The perusal of record reveals that complainant has filed this complaint with the averments that complainant had purchased mobile in question from op no.1 for a sum of Rs.5800/- vide bill No.7705 dated 30.6.2015. Further there are allegations that after sometime, the said mobile started giving troubles of automatically switched off, earphone, heating and hanging etc. and the mobile has been kept by opposite party no.2 for a considerable period for two three times for repairs but still the problems exist in the mobile in question. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.PW/C1, bill Ex.PW/C2 and copy of job sheet dated 10.6.2016 Ex.PW/C3. The perusal of job sheet dated 10.6.2016 Ex.PW/C3 reveals that mobile in question was having problem of Switch on. On the other hand, op no.2 has only furnished affidavit of Sh. Parmod Kumar Sachdeva Proprietor as Ex.RW1/A and has not placed on file any document showing that problem of mobile was removed and complainant received the same with his full satisfaction. The perusal of this affidavit Ex.RW1/A reveals that the deponent has not denied that mobile was suffering from defects, though it has been alleged that same was repaired to the satisfaction of complainant. So, it appears from the evidence of complainant that definitely the mobile of the complainant is suffering from some defects and further mobile of the complainant was within warranty period when he approached the service center and it is legal obligation of the ops to provide better services to the complainant in case there is any defect in the mobile set.

7.                In view of above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs in the mobile set within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order on production of mobile by the complainant even by replacing any parts free of costs and in case the same is not repairable and suffers from some manufacturing defect, the ops shall be liable to replace the mobile of same make and model without any cost within further 15 days and if it is found that mobile of the same make and model is not available with the ops, they will make refund of the cost of the mobile i.e. Rs.5800/- to the complainant within further period of 30 days, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint till actual payment. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. The complainant is directed to deposit the mobile set in question with op no.2 within seven days against proper receipt.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum.                                                   President,

Dated:19.9.2017.                                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                            Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                                                          Member