DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.315 of 14
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 17-11.2014
DATE OF ORDER: 14-11-2017
Puneet Mehta son of Shri Sant Lal Mehta, resident of near Bus Stand, Tosham, District Bhiwani.
……………Complainant.
VERSUS
- Sanjay Narang, Proprietor of Narang Mobile, Shop No. 13, Nahara-Nahari Road, Bahadurgarh, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.
- M/s Sandeep Enterprises (Micromax Service Center), Shop No. 10, Biju Tower, Meham Gate, Bhiwani (through its authorized representatives).
- Micromax Informatics Ltd., Micromax House, 90B, Sector 18, Gurgaon, through its Manager.
………….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.
Smt. Sudesh, Member.
Shri Parmod Kumar, Member.
Present:- Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
OPs no. 1 & 2 exparte.
Sh. Harinder Rana, Advocate for OP no. 3.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased a Micromax mobile set on dated 22.6.2013 model no. Micromax HD A116, bearing IMEI no. 911304254845930 and IMEI-2, No. 911304255355939 in sum of Rs. 14,5000/-, at the time of purchasing of above said mobile set the OP no. 1 had given one year warrant to the complainant. It is alleged that after purchasing of above said mobile set, it worked till 15.6.2014 after that the above said mobile set became completely dead due to some manufacturing defect and then on dated 16.6.2014, the complainant approached to the OP no. 2 and requested him to repair the same as it was became completely dead. It is alleged that OP no. 2 checked the mobile set and told to the complainant and there is some manufacturing defect in your mobile set and it would takes about one month in its repairing and they deposited the same for its repairing. The complainant many times visited in the shop of OP no. 2 to receive his mobile set but the OP no. 2 did not repair the same till 25.8.2014. It is further alleged that on dated 26.8.2014, the complainant visited in the shop of OP no. 2 and the OP no. 2 delivered the mobile set to the complainant and when the complainant checked the mobile set and found that wi-fi of the mobile was not working, therefore, the complainant again deposited the same at same time with the OP no. 2 and he taken the same in his possession for its renewal by virtue of job sheet 26.8.2014 and made endorsement that under warranty, since then the mobile set in question is in the possession of the OP no. 2. It is further alleged that after passing of some time, the complainant again visited in the service centre of OP no. 2 and requested him to deliver the mobile set and OP no. 2 told to the complainant due to manufacturing defect your mobile has not been repaired and it would take more time in repairing upon this, the complainant came back to his house and after passing of two month he again visited in the service center of OP no. 2 but the mobile set was not repaired by him and they remained putting off the matter on one pretext or other and not repaired the mobile set. It is further alleged that on dated 1.11.2014, the complainant visited in the service center of OP no. 2 and requested them to give his mobile set but the OPs did not repair the mobile set of the complainant and told to him that we could not repair your mobile set due to heavy manufacturing fault and same would be repaired within one week. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the OPs, he has to physical and mental harassment
2. OP no. 1 & 2 have failed to come present. Hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.07.2015.
3. OP no. 3 filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant purchase the handset from M/s Narang Mobile and no cause of action has been arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Forum. It is submitted that the answering respondent never denied to provide its services to the complainant as assured under the terms of the warranty and the complainant agree with the terms of warranty at the time of purchase of handset and the complainant not filed the terms of the warranty alongwith the present complaint. It is submitted that the present false frivolous and baseless complaint file by the complainant just to dragged the answering respondent in unwanted litigation and caused financial losses to contest and unwanted litigation. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
5. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile handset in question from the OP no. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 14,500/- vide bill dated 22.6.2013 Annexure C-1. The mobile handset was working properly till 15.6.2014 and after that it became defective. The complainant approached the OP no. 2 for the repair of his mobile handset, vide job sheet dated 16.6.2014 Annexure C-2. The OP no. 1 could not rectify the defect in the mobile handset. Hence the complainant again delivered the mobile handset to the OP no. 2 vide job sheet dated 26.8.2014 Annexure C-3 for repair. The mobile handset is having the manufacturing defect and the OPs are liable to replace the same.
6. Learned counsel for OP no. 3 reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the complainant had purchased the mobile handset in question on 22.6.2013 and the warranty was valid upto 21.6.2014 and the complainant deposited his handset with OP no. 2 on 16.6.2014 just 5 days prior to the expiry of the guarantee period. The handset of the complainant was repaired by the OP no. 2 but the complainant intentionally did not take the delivery of the handset. There is no manufacturing defect in the mobile handset in question.
7. Admittedly, the mobile handset in question was purchased by the complainant on 22.6.2013 and the warranty was valid up to 21.6.2014 and according to the version of the complainant, the mobile handset worked properly till 15.6.2014, almost one year. Hence the complaint of the complainant that the mobile handset in question is having the manufacturing defect, cannot be admitted. Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and the OPs are directed to repair the mobile handset in question of the complainant. The complainant is directed to approach the service centre of the company within 15 days from the date of passing of this order for the repair of his mobile handset and the OPs are directed to repair the mobile handset of the complainant within 30 days from the date of the delivery of the mobile handset. No order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:.14-11-2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member. Member
