DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                      Consumer Complaint No.226 of 2016                                                   Date of institution: 22.04.2016                                                  Date of decision   :  16.03.2017

Satwinder Singh son of Gurdev Singh, Adonis Medical System E-70, Phase-8, Industrial Area, SAS Nagar (Mohali) Punjab 160055.

                                     ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Snap Deal through online Electronics Arena-Jaipur E-250, Road No.13, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Sikra Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2.     Micromax Care, M/s. Future Communication, SCO 78, Ist Floor,  Sector 54, Phase-2, SAS Nagar Mohali.

3.     Micromax Informatic Ltd., Micromax House 90-B, Sector 18, Gurgaon 122015.

                                                               ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Sections 12  of

 Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President 

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Complainant in person.

                OP No.1 already given up on 05.09.2016

                OP No.2 and 3 Ex-parte.

ORDER

By Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

                Complainant Satwinder Singh has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant purchased through online a mobile hand set (Micromax Canvas Gold A 300) for Rs.14,889/- from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 10.12.2014.  At that time OP No.1 informed the complainant about warranty of one year that if any complaint or defect is found in the mobile handset, the same would be replaced with any other set having same price value.  After 6-7 months of purchase of mobile handset, it started giving problems like hanging and touch problem. The complainant visited OP No.2 and who kept the mobile hand set with it vide job sheet dated 11.09.2015 and asked the complainant to come after 15-20 days. The complainant visited OP No.2 after 15-20 days and the OP No.2 informed him that the mobile phone’s touch screen is suffering from major problem which needs about 30 days to solve the problem. When the complainant visited OP No.2 after 30 days he was informed that touch screen is under replacement process and OP No.2 asked the complainant to wait for another 20 days. Again after 20 days OP No.2 failed to give any satisfactory reply to the complainant for solution of his mobile phone problem. Till date the mobile handset has not been repaired which was under warranty.  Hence, the complaint for giving direction to the OPs to replace his Micromax Canvas Gold A 300 hand set with a new one and to compensate him to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for mental tension, harassment and unwanted litigation.

3.             The complainant vide his statement  dated 05.09.2016 stated that he does not claim any relief against OP No.1 and accordingly  name of OP No.1 was given up from the array of the OPs vide order dated 05.09.2016.

4.             Shri Shivam, Proprietor of OP No.2 appeared on 05.09.2016 and sought time to file reply.  However, thereafter none appeared on behalf of OP No.2 nor any reply was filed. Thus, as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 04.12.2015 in case titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., the right of OP No.2 for filing written version was struck off. As the OP No.2 never appeared after putting in appearance on 05.09.2016, it was ultimately proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.11.2016. As per office report, OP No.3 was served on 30.09.2016 but none appeared for it, thus OP No.3 was also proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.11.2016.

5.             In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1; copies of job sheet Ex.C-1 and bill Ex.C-2.

6.             We have heard the complainant and gone through the contents of file.

7.             We are of the considered opinion that OP No.2 and 3 are deficient in service jointly and severally because of the reason by not telling the status of mobile phone of the complainant as stated by the complainant. Ample opportunity was given to OP No.2 and 3 to contest the complaint and appear in this Forum but they chose not to contest and appear respectively, which amounts to admission of the averments of the complaint and that OP No.2 and 3 does not want to say anything in this regard.  This act of the OPs has caused mental tension and harassment to the complainant.

8.             Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is allowed. OP No.2 and 3 are directed to replace the mobile hand set (Micromax Canvass Gold A 300) of the complainant with a new one. OP No.2 and 3 should also pay to the complainant a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation. The present complaint stands allowed accordingly.

                The OP No.2 and 3 are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decision till actual payment.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard on 09.03.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 16.03.2017

                                              (A.P.S.Rajput)                                                          President

                                                              (Amrinder Singh Sidhu) Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member