BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no. 42 of 2016
Date of Institution: 05.02.2016
Date of Decision: 24.11.2016
Sh. Mukesh Kaliramana Advocate, District Courts, Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s Satyam Mobiles through its Prop/ Incharge, Sadar Bazar Sirsa, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
2. Micromax Mobile Customer Service Centre Office at Gali Telianwali, backside of Masjid, Sirsa through its Authorized person.
3. Micromax House, 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122022 (Haryana) through its Director/ Authorized/ responsible person.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Mukesh Kaliramana, Advocate/ complainant in person.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh.Ravinder Monga, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 and 3.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that he had purchased one mobile set make Micromax A350 Canvas Knight from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.14,000/- vide invoice No.78248 dated 4.12.2014 with one year warranty. However, after short period of 4-5 months of purchase, the mobile set suffered from the problem of hanging upon which complainant approached op no.1 who sent him to op no.2. The op no.2 after checking of mobile, kept the same with it without issuing any job sheet and simply stated that grievance would be redressed within 7 days. Thereafter, op no.2 handed over the mobile with the assurance that the set is quite OK. After that complainant used the mobile set but the problem of hanging was not removed permanently. The complainant again approached op no.1 who again sent him to op no.2 and op no.2 kept the mobile with it on the pretext that they would get the mobile set replaced with fresh one. However, op no.2 handed over the mobile to him by saying that there was mere problem of software and they have installed the software in the month of September, 2015 and assured that there would be no problem of any kind in the mobile but despite that hanging problem was existing. The complainant again deposited the mobile with op no.2 which sent the mobile to the company for replacement and stated that now mobile would be changed by the company but complainant was shocked to see that even after keeping the mobile set in the company for a period of two months, no work of any kind on the mobile was done rather the ops in collusion with each other made him fool. Thereafter, complainant approached op no.2 and deposited the mobile with the problems in the mobile which were duly checked by op no.2 and on his insisting, they have mentioned the defect on the job sheet dated 1.12.2015 and assured him that they would definitely get redressed the grievance of the complainant. After that the complainant took the rounds at the office of op no.2 time and again but they did not give any satisfactory answer and now they have returned the same by saying that they cannot do anything. The complainant has come to know that op no.3 has stopped manufacturing the said mobile set since long back and that is why the company has committed all this in collusion with ops no.1 & 2. The complainant also sent the complaints through e-mail messages, but of no avail. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and resisted the complaint by filing written statement. It has been submitted that complainant never approached to op no.1 complaining any defect and had the complainant approached op no.1, then answering op would have tried his best to redress the grievance of complainant through proper channel. Remaining contents of complaint have been denied.
3. Ops No.2 & 3 in their separate written statement have replied that on account of opening of so many applications simultaneously the trouble faced by the complainant. Upon contacting the same by op no.2, same was improved with the full satisfaction of complainant. Then complainant approached to the answering op with another problem of software which was accrued on account of heavy loading of video games, songs etc. i.e. more than the capacity. So, the answering op updated and reloaded the software in the mobile of complainant and thereafter, with due satisfaction he is enjoying the functioning of the same. Then complainant approached to answering op with another complaint which requires time and permission from answering op no.3. But the complainant insisted for replacement of the mobile which is not permissible. However, after removing the minor defect the mobile set of the complainant was handed over to him with smooth functioning and comfortable working. Remaining averments of the complaint have been denied.
4. In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and copy of bill Ex.C1. On the other hand, ops tendered affidavit Ex.R1.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. The complainant has alleged defect of hanging of the mobile within warranty period. According to the complainant, mobile has been repaired for several times by op no.2 after keeping the same for several days but the defect could not be removed permanently. Even the mobile was kept by company for two months but defect still exists and the opposite parties have failed to replace the mobile despite assurances. The ops No.2 & 3 have also admitted that the complaint of complainant requires time and permission from op no.3 which supports the version of the complainant that mobile is having certain defects and therefore, complainant is entitled to replacement of the mobile with new one.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties either to replace the mobile with new one of same price and description which shall be free from any defect or to refund the price of the mobile i.e. Rs.14,000/- to the complainant, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ops are jointly and severally liable to comply this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:24.11.2016 Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
