Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/17/2017

Sonu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shree Raj Comm. - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Bajar

11 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

                                                                        Complaint No.: 17 of 2017.

                                                                        Date of Institution: 23.01.2017.

                                                                        Date of Decision:  11.09.2023.

 

Sonu son of Sh. Surajbhan, resident of Hanuman Gate, Bhiwani Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

..….Complainant.

 

                                         Versus

1. Shree Raj communication, Hansi Gate, Near Haryana Store, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani through its proprietor.
2. M/s Khurana Mobile, Shop No.21, First Floor Halwasia Mall, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, through its Proprietor.
3. Micromax India Smartphones, Head Office, Micromax House 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase V, Gurugram-122016, through  authorized signatory.

 

…...Opposite Parties.

 

                     COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                     THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before: -      Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member..

                     Mr. D.M.Yadav, Member.

                    

Present:        Sh. Pardeep Kumar Bajar, Advocate for complainant.

                     Sh. Harender Bhalothia, Advocate for OP no. 1.

                     OP no. 2 exparte.

                     Complaint qua OP no.3 already dismissed ( Vide order dt.11.07.2022)

 

ORDER:-

 

SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.           Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased  a Micromax A-106 mobile  dated 01.06.2015 for a sum of Rs. 6,000/-. The complainant received some defects while using abovesaid mobile phone. The complainant approached for servicing/repairing of above noted mobile phone to OP no.2. It is alleged that the employees/workers told the complainant to submit phone for repairing and to get back within 2-3 days The employee of OP no.2 also gave a receipt submission of mobile phone. The OP no2 to return his mobile phone after repairing the employees/worker told him to come again within 2-3 days again Whenever complainant visited to the OP no.2 the employees made excuses and did not return the mobile phone without giving any clarification. The complainant has made various requests to return the mobile phone after repairing or to give a new mobile phone or to pay an amount for purchasing a new mobile phone but OP no.2 did not give any satisfactory reply. A legal notice was served by the complainant through his counsel Sh. Pardeep Kumar Bajar, Advocate Bhiwani on dated 21.07.2016 and the same was not replied by OP no.2.  The complainant made various complaints to OP 2 who neither repaired the mobile phone nor returned back the same to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  So, the complainant has come to this Commission and has filed the present complaint with the prayer to direct the OPs either to return the mobile phone after repairing or to give a new mobile phone or to pay an amount for purchasing a new mobile phone and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-as compensation  and a sum of Rs.10,000/- as Advocate fee/litigation expenses.
2.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.2 and accordingly, the OP No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.05.2017.
3.           OP no.1 in its written statement has submitted that the complainant has purchased the mobile phone from OP no.1 but the answering respondent is not liable for any fault in the mobile phone but the company i.e. Micromax is liable for the same. It is worth  mentioning  here that the bill of mobile phone has also been issued to the complainant and in the bill it is clearly mentioned that the seller will not be liable for any fault in the mobile phone in any manner but service centre Micromax and company Micromax will be liable for the same and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.
4.           Complaint qua OP no.3 dismissed vide order dt.11.07.2022.
5.            In order to prove his case, the complainant has filed his sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C3 in his evidence and closed the same vide his separate statement dt.14.09.2018

6.                  Counsel for the OP no.1 has not produced any evidence and the evidence be closed by the order of this Commission

7.                  We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record thoroughly and carefully.  The grievance of the complainant is that he has purchased the mobile on 01.06.2015 and after some time, the defects have developed in the mobile in question and the complainant approached for repairing of above mobile phone to OP no. 2 but the OP no. 2 did not repair the same and did not return the mobile phone without giving any clarification.  The grievance of the OP no. 1 is that he is not liable for any fault in the mobile phone which is clearly mentions in the bill terms and conditions i.e. Annexure C-1.  In the job sheet dated 10.6.2016 as Annexure C-2, in which it is mentioned that the mobile phone is under warranty.    In our view, it was the duty of the OP no.2 to repair the mobile to the satisfaction of the complainant but instead of making necessary repairs in the mobile, he has not returned the mobile to the complainant, the mobile is in the custody of the OP no.2 and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the OP no. 2.

8.               With these observations and findings, the present complaint of the complainant is hereby allowed and direct the OP no. 2 to pay the cost of mobile i.e. Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 23.1.2017 till its realization and shall also pay  a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5500/- (Rupees five thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant.  Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.

                  Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.

Dated: - 11.09.2023

 

 (D.M.Yadav)            (Saroj Bala Bohra)               

   Member.                Presiding Member,

                                                District Consumer Disputes

                                               Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.

 

 

Present:        Sh. Pardeep Kumar Bajar, Advocate for complainant.

                     Sh. Harender Bhalothia, Advocate for OP no. 1.

                     OP no. 2 exparte.

                     Complaint qua OP no.3 already dismissed ( Vide order dt.11.07.2022)

 

                    Arguments heard.  Vide separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint stands allowed.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

                   

Dt:11.9.2023           Member.                   Presiding Member,

                                                               District Consumer Disputes

                                                              Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.