BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.271 of 2017
Date of Institution: 23.10.2017
Date of Decision: 12.12.2017
Sonu Saini aged about 24 years son of Shri Jhandu Ram, resident of House No.336, Masjid Wali Gali, Noharia Bazaar, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
………Complainant.
Versus
1. Shreyas Retail Private Limited, 42/ 143, Kacherakanahalli Village Jadigenahalli Hobli Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru, Karnataka- 56007 through its authorized person.
2. Shree Communication, Jain Market, Sadar Bazar, Near Masjid, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa through its authorized person.
3. The Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory, Micromax Informatic Limited, Head Office (2.9*/5 (594 Ratings), Micromax House, 90-B, Gurgaon Sector 18 Gurgaon- 122015.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that opposite party no.3 is the manufacturer of Micromax mobiles, whereas the op no.2 is the authorized customer care centre and op no.1 is the authorized dealer of op no.3. That the op no.1 being the dealer of op no.3 deals in the business of sale of the micromax mobiles by way of online service through Flipkart. It is further averred that complainant had placed an order and got booked a Micromax mobile model YU Yureka Plus through online service and as per the norms of the company, the amount of price of the mobile was to be paid by the complainant on delivery of the mobile. After getting booked the aforesaid mobile, on 24.9.2016 the mobile was delivered to the complainant at Sirsa and the delivery boy had charged a sum of Rs.6499/- as price of the mobile and also had charged sufficient amount from the complainant qua the delivery/ shipping expenses. The delivery boy had also handed over a bill dated 24.9.2016 to the complainant. The op no.1 had given one year guarantee/ warranty of the mobile in question to the complainant. That after the purchase of the said mobile, the complainant started using the said mobile but after sometime of its purchase i.e. in the month of March, 2017, the said mobile started giving troubles such as automatically switched off, voice problem, heat etc. The complainant contacted op no.2 and requested to remove the defects arisen in the mobile. The op no.2 kept the said mobile with him and assured that same shall be handed over to him within a short period. Thereafter, the complainant kept on making rounds to the shop of op no.2 but op no.2 did not deliver the mobile to the complainant on one false excuse or the other and ultimately after passing of a sufficient period of about one month, on the visit of the complainant the mobile was handed over to the complainant saying that all kinds of defects have already been removed and now the mobile has become defect free. It is further averred that the complainant while standing at the shop of op no.2 himself checked the mobile but he found the display of the mobile not upto the mark rather the same was displaced from its actual position. Other numerous kinds of problems in the mobile were also found. The complainant brought this fact to the notice of op no.2 and requested to put the same in proper functioning. The op no.2 on the same day taken the said mobile back from complainant and asked him to wait for a further period of 15-20 days and it was assured that condition of the mobile would be like a fresh mobile. It is further averred that after 15-20 days, the op no.2 handed over the mobile to the complainant saying that now there remains no defect and same shall run smoothly, however, complainant was totally surprised to see the same as the said mobile was not the same mobile which was handed over by him to op no.2 for repair rather it was some other mobile of other model having low price than the mobile of the complainant. The op no.2 firstly tried to convince the complainant to keep the mobile of another model saying that he has to keep the mobile as received from the company but when the complainant did not agree to the same, he requested the complainant to wait for further period and a job sheet dated 21.6.2017 was also issued by op no.2 to the complainant in this regard. That thereafter the complainant kept on visiting the shop of op no.2 time and again and kept on making requests to look into the matter and to bring him out of the problem by making his mobile defect free but op no.2 did not bother to the request of complainant and kept on postponing the matter on one baseless excuse or the other. In furtherance of the same, the op no.2 also issued another job sheet dated 1.9.2017 but the mobile has still not been delivered to the complainant rather the same is still lying with the ops. It is further averred that now about some days ago, the op no.2 clearly raised his hands simply saying that there is no chance of making the mobile defect free and that complainant either should purchase a new mobile or to directly contact the op no.3 for replacement of the mobile. That the above said act and conduct of the ops amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant has suffered a lot of harassment. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties did not appear and therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.
3. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of invoice Ex.C2, copy of job sheet dated 21.6.2017 Ex.C3, copy of job sheet dated 1.9.2017 Ex.C4, copy of status report Ex.C5 and CD Ex.C6.
4. We have heard the complainant and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated all the facts mentioned in his complaint. He has also furnished copy of invoice Ex.C2, copy of job sheet dated 21.6.2017 Ex.C3, copy of job sheet dated 1.9.2017 Ex.C4, copy of status report Ex.C5 and CD Ex.C6. From the copy of invoice Ex.C2, it is evident that complainant purchased mobile in question for a sum of Rs.6499/- from opposite party no.1 on 24.9.2016 through online service. From the copies of job sheets dated 21.6.2017 and 1.9.2017 Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 respectively, it is evident that mobile in question suffered defects in the warranty period of one year. Since, the opposite parties did not put their appearance and were proceeded against exparte, so the pleadings of the complainant and evidence led by the complainant goes unchallenged and unrebutted. It is proved on record that complainant visited the op no.2 i.e. customer care centre of op no.3 time and again but op no.2 has failed to rectify the mobile and has failed to make it defect free and the ops have also failed to replace the defective mobile with a new one defect free mobile and the mobile in question is still with ops.
6. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the mobile of the complainant with a new one of same make and model without any cost or in the alternate to refund the amount of Rs.5000/- to the complainant after making deduction of Rs.1499/- on account of depreciation within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 23.10.2017 till actual payment. We also direct the opposite parties to further pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as compensation including litigation expenses to the complainant within above said period of one month. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:12.12.2017. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
