BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.128 of 2017
Date of Instt. 04.05.2017
Date of Decision: 06.09.2017
Miss Gurtirath D/o Sharminder singh, R/o VPO Gohir, Teh. Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar through Attorney Pawanpreet Singh Age 23 years, S/o Mota Singh, R/o VPO Littran, Teh. Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar, Mob No.7696401230
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Sehaj Telecare, 1st Floor, Gulati Complex, Near DLF Mall, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar (Mob. No.86997-40096)
2. Micromax Information Ltd., Micromax House, 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon-122022 (Haryana), India.
….… Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. Pawanpreet Singh, Attorney of the complainant.
OP No.1 & 2 exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint filed by the complainant through attorney Pawanpreet Singh, wherein alleged that the complainant purchased a mobile handset make Micromax, IMEI No.911432551231072 for Rs.9999/- from M/s Dolphin Communication, M.C. Chowk, Nakodar, Distt. Jalandhar vide Invoice No.189 dated 09.06.2016. That warranty of one year was given for the above said handset. It was also assured by the seller that in case of any defect, if arisen in the said set, the handset would be replaced/repaired immediately by their authorized service centre located at Jalandhar i.e. OP No.1.That within warranty period, the above said mobile handset became out of order. Its display became fade. The complainant gave the above said handset for repair/change of display to OP No.1 on 17.01.2017. The OP No.1 checked the handset and found the defect of display fading. The OP kept the handset with them for repair/replacement of display and called the complainant to collect the handset after 15 days. When after 15 days, the complainant went to take the handset, the same defect was found. This defect occurred for four times and the problem of display fading could not be removed by the OP No.1. The complainant visited the OP No.1 several times and also telephone calls. Many times the OP No.1 ignored to attend the telephone call. That despite so many telephone calls and several visits made by complainant to OP No.1, the OP No.1 has neither repaired the phone nor replaced the display. The complainant requested the OP No.1, if the defect could not be removed, then the handset may be replaced with new one, but the request of complainant was declined by the OP No.1. The defective handset is still lying with OP No.1, which they have neither repaired nor replaced till date. The inferior quality handset consisting manufacturing defect has been sold by the OPs, which became defective within warranty period. The complainant has been deprived of for the use of the above said mobile handset. The office of OP No.1 is situated at Jalandhar, which is under the care and administrative control of OP No.2. The OP No.2 is head office and manufacturer of the above said mobile handset carrying on the business for sale of mobiles under the trade mark of Micromax throughout India including Jalandhar. That due to non repair/non replacement of the above said mobile handset, the complainant has been deprived of for the use of said mobile handset and has suffered a lot of mental tension and harassment and accordingly the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to return the total price of mobile handset as per bill i.e. Rs.999-/- with interest @ 12% per annum and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment to the complainant and also be directed to pay Rs.300/- as cost of litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs but despite service, both the OPs did not come present and ultimately they were proceeded against exparte.
3. In order to prove his exparte claim, attorney of the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C3 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the attorney of the complainant namely Pawanpreet Singh and also gone through the case file very minutely.
5. After considering the over all factors as elaborated by the attorney before us, it reveals that the complainant purchased a mobile handset on 09.06.2016, for a sum of Rs.9999/- but after some time, mobile set started giving problem in the display system, which became fade and accordingly the complainant approached to the customer care centre i.e. OP No.1 on 17.01.2017 and mobile set of the complainant was retained by the OP No.1 with the assurance that it will be repaired and display will be replaced and collect the handset after 15 days but after 15 days, when the complainant collected the mobile set, he again found that the defect was as it is there. The said defect occurred for four times and this problem could not be removed by the OP and as such there is inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile set and requested for return of the price of the handset alongwith interest as well as compensation and litigation expenses.
6. We find that the version of the complainant is un-rebutted and un-challenged because both the OPs despite service, did not bother to appear in this Forum and whenever un-rebutted version came before us, then we have to accept the same and further in order to prove the defect in the mobile set, the complainant has brought on the file job sheet dated 17.01.2017 Ex.C2, which is issued by the OP No.1 and the problem mentioned therein is “Display Fading”. So, it means that the problem in the mobile hand set is established and the same could not be cured despite four visits of the complainant and as such the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.
7. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to return the total price of the mobile handset as per bill i.e. Rs.9999/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint till realization and further OPs are directed to pay a compensation to the complainant for mental tension and harassment, to the tune of Rs.5000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
06.09.2017 Member President
