Case of complainant Ravi Kumar is that on 06.02.2014, he had purchased Micro Max A-240 mobile handset for Rs.13,500/- vide bill No.251 dated 06.02.2014(Ex.C-1) from S.P. Communication i.e. from opposite party No.1. Micro Max Informatics i.e. opposite party No.3 is its manufacturing company and Global Communication, Hisar i.e. opposite party No.2 is its service centre.
2 After about seven months of the purchase, the mobile hand set stopped working due to defect in its charging jack. Complainant went to opposite party No.1 and at his instance, went to the customer care centre i.e. to opposite party No.2. Customer care center kept the mobile hand set with it and handed over copy of job sheet. After about one and half month, the complainant collected the mobile hand set, but after a few days, the mobile hand set again started giving many other problems i.e. Network problem, hanging and battery not charging etc. The complainant again went to the service centre, when he was told to wait for one week. He had to visit the service centre 8-9 times to collect the mobile hand set. But on getting the mobile hand set, again, he faced with the same problem. Once again he went to the service centre, but now his request was not accepted. He was put off; hence this complaint for a direction to the opposite parties, for refund of the price of the hand set, with up to date interest, besides compensation for his harassment, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses.
3. All the opposite parties have been duly proceeded ex-parte vide order of this forum dated 3.3.2015
4 Complainant has supported his aforesaid pleaded case, by way of his own affidavit, as well as, by way of copy of invoice dated 6.2.14, issued by S. P. Communication and copies of job sheets. Therefrom, it is amply establish that mobile hand set of the complainant had started giving many problems which could not be removed by the service centre. It has some inherent/manufacturing defect in it. Selling such like mobile hand set and not bringing it in order during warranty period is gross deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
5. Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite parties, either to replace the mobile hand set, in question, with the same or with some higher make, to the complainant, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. For which written notice shall be given by the opposite parties to the complainant to collect it, otherwise to refund its price of Rs.13,500/-, to the complainant. Complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.800/- for his harassment, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses of Rs.330/-, against the opposite parties, who shall be jointly and severely liable to comply the order.
6. However, primary responsibility to comply the order shall be of opposite party No.3 being the manufacturing company. In case compliance of the order is made by opposite party No.1or by opposite party No.2 as the case may be, then the complying party shall be duly indemnified by opposite party No. 3, with interest @ 10% per annum.
Announced in open court:
Dated:06.05.2015
