BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no. 52 of 2014
Date of Institution: 28.4.2014
Date of Decision: 11.8.2016
Balram Garg, aged about 28 years son of Sh.Darshan Lal, r/o village Sardulgarh, tehsil Sardulgarh, distt. Mansa (Punjab).
………Complainant.
Versus
- Shivam Telecom, Main Bazar, Rori, tehsil and District Sirsa through its Proprietor/Partner.
- M/s Shree Communication, Jain Market, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa Distt.Sirsa through its Incharge.
- M/s Micromax Company c/o M/s M/s Shree Communication, Jain Market, Sadar Bazar, Sirsa Distt.Sirsa through its Managing Director.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Shri Harish Chhabra, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite party no.1exparte.
Sh.Ravinder Monga, Advocate for Opposite parties no.2 and 3.
ORDER
In brief, case of complainant is that on 30.5.2013 he had purchased one mobile of Micromax A-116 for the sum of Rs.14100/-from Op no.1 vide bill dt. 30.5.2013 with guarantee of one year. Op no.2 is Care centre and Op no.3 is manufacturing company of Micromax. After its purchase, there was problem of charging. When firstly on 23.7.2013, the complainant approached Op no.1, then op no.1 sent the complainant to Op no.2 for its repair, who issued a job card and handed over the same after its repair. But, after sometime, it again badly defected with the same problem. On contact to Op no.2, it could not be repaired and returned the same in damaged condition remarking that there is a manufacturing defect and cannot be repaired. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, Ops no.2 and 3 appeared and contested the case by filing reply, whereas OP1 was proceeded exparte vide order dt. 27.4.2015. It is replied by Ops no.2 and 3 that complainant approached to Op no.2 on 23.7.2013 with a minor problem of charging, which was found due to rough handling by the complainant. The problem was removed and set was handed over to the complainant with full satisfaction. Thereafter, within the period of 15-20 days, complainant again approached Op no.2 with the same problem. On the request of complainant, mobile was sent to the manufacturing company-op no.3. The defect was removed and the mobile was returned to the complainant with full satisfaction. Now, the complaint has been filed after lapse of warranty period. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops no.2 and 3.
3. By way of evidence, the complainant produced his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, photo copy of bill Ex.P1 and job sheets Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. Whereas, Ops have produced affidavit of Ex.R1.
4. We have heard ld. counsels for parties and have gone through the record carefully.
5. Through the affidavit of complainant and job sheet on the record as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, it is clearly established on record that mobile set is having charging problem since very beginning. It is also established on record that charging problem occurred within the guarantee/warranty period. Hence, present complaint stands allowed and Ops are directed to replace the mobile of the complainant with a new one of similar description which shall be free from any defect, 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:11.8.2016 Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
