O R D E R
D.R. Tamta, Member
The complainant has filed present complaint against O.Ps under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that complainant had purchased a mobile phone in the name of his minor daughter of Micromax vide EMI No./S.No.911217501570111 from the of OP-1 for a sum of Rs.4,900/- on 20.10.2012. It is alleged that after he used the said mobile, the complainant noticed that the mobile phone was defective and complainant contacted to the OPs but OPs clearly refused to replace or maintain the same. It is alleged that as per advice of the OP No.1 complainant approached the service centre i.e. Multani Dhanda at Paharganj. It is alleged that service centre installed a software in the mobile phone but still the phone was not working properly. It is alleged that the complainant submitted the phone at service Centre of Azadpur(OP-2) on 25.4.2013. It is alleged that the OP-2 replaced the mobile phone MICROMAX A 45 with MICROMAX A35 on 21.8.2013 but the replaced phone was also defective. It is alleged that the complainant contacted the OP-2 and requested to replace MICROMAX A35 but OP-2 refused to replace the phone and said that this is only service there get the token and submit there. It is also alleged that MICROMAX A35 was not working properly and the back cover of this phone is broken. On these facts complainant prays that O.Ps be directed to replace of the mobile phone and also to pay compensation as claimed.
2. The O.Ps were duly served but they did not put an appearance therefore they were proceeded with ex-parte. Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts as alleged in the complaint.
3. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submission of the complainant.
4. From the perusal of record we find that complainant has placed on record Invoice No. R-1104 dated 20.10.2012 issued by Shree Sons, 90-E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi which shows that mobile phone of Micromax vide EMI No./S.No.911217501570111 was purchased by the complainant from the of OP-1 for a sum of Rs.4,900/- on 20.10.2012.
5. We have carefully gone through the record of the case. From the perusal of the record we find that the mobile phone in question was giving frequent problems for which complainant has made several complaints to the O.Ps. The complainant had visited the service centre of the O.P- on several occasions but the O.P could not repair the mobile handset. It cannot be said that goods sold to complainant was marketable as the O.P could not remove the defects. On the other hand O.Ps did not attend to the reasonable grievance of the complainant. Therefore, we come to the conclusion that there was defect in the goods sold by the O.Ps which they failed to rectify and secondly they failed to render proper service to the complainant which is deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps.
6. In view of the above, we are of the view that ends of justice will be met if O.Ps are directed to replace the mobile phone to the complainant. Accordingly we direct the O.Ps, jointly and severally, to replace the mobile phone with a new one with fresh warranty to the complainant within one month of receipt of this order. Apart from that O.Ps shall jointly and severally also pay Rs.1,500/- to the complainant towards cost and compensation. Ordered accordingly. The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of this order.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties by Registered post and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
Announced this 30th day of January, 2015.
(BABU LAL) (D.R. TAMTA) (MRS.SHAHINA)
President Member Member
