BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
Complaint No. 14 of 2016
Date of Institution: 3.2.2016
Date of final order: 8.7.2016
Amit Sharma s/o Sh. Ramphal Sharma aged 26 years r/o House No.745 Kithana, Tehsil Kaithal.
….Complainant.
Versus
Sonu Mobile shop No.9, Basement near Bharat Cinema, Jhanj Gate, Batra Shopping Complex, Jind 126102 contact No.9812175147.
Manager Micromax Mobile Care Centre, Jind.
Managing Director, Micromax House No.697, Udyog Vihar Phase-V Gurgaon Pin No.122022, E Mail @ micormax inco.com.
…..Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.
Present: Sh. Amit Sharma complainant in person.
Sh. Abhishek Singla Adv. for opposite party No.3.
(defence already struck-off)
Opposite parties No.1&2 already ex-parte.
ORDER:
The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant had purchased Micromax mobile A4501 for a sum of Rs.5,364/- vide bill No. D3LYTJ 1 HR (HRDEL2-144105041-2091436) dated 8.5.2015 on line. The guarantee period of the above mobile was one year from the date of its purchase. After one month of use, the above said mobile
Amit Sharma Vs. Sonu Mobile etc.
…2…
stopped working. The complainant met the opposite party No.1 i.e. service centre, Jind on 10.10.2015 and deposited the mobile set for removing the defects but the same was returned on 10.11.2015 to him saying that defects were removed. But due to same defects again, the mobile deposited with opposite party No.1 on 15.11.2015 but opposite party No.1 told that defects cannot be removed and another mobile set was given to the complainant but he was surprised to see that the mobile was an old one mobile and he returned the same to opposite party No.1. The above said mobile phone is under warranty period and it is duty of opposite parties to change the mobile of complainant or to remove the defects but the opposite parties did not remove the defects of the mobile set of complainant. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to replace the mobile set and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony as well as to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 27.4.2016. Reply not filed by opposite party No.3 despite last opportunity. Hence, the defence of opposite party No.3 was struck off vide order of this Forum dated 2.6.2016.
3. In ex-parte evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Annexure C-1, copy of job sheet dated 14.12.2015 Annexure C-2, copy of retail invoice Annexure C-3 and copy of customer job card Annexure C-4 and closed the evidence.
Amit Sharma Vs. Sonu Mobile etc.
…3…
4. We have heard the parties and also perused the record placed on file. The complainant has purchased the mobile phone against a sum of Rs.5364/- on 8.5.2015 and the same has started giving trouble from the very beginning. The complainant argued that after one month of purchase of mobile, the mobile is not working properly. It is further argued that the complainant had deposited the mobile set with the opposite party No.1 on 14.11.2015 vide job sheet Annexure C-2 complaining several problems i.e. application performance, usability failure, Cellular assess, bad transmission, audio no incoming and over- heating of battery, but the opposite party No.1 has failed to remove the defect from the mobile set of the complainant and return the same to the complainant having same problem. The complainant again deposited the mobile set with service centre of opposite party No.3 on 27.1.2016 vide Annexure C-4 but the opposite party has failed to rectify the defects from the mobile set and offered the old mobile set to the complainant on which the complainant has failed to receive the old mobile set.
5. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.3 has argued that the company is providing the faithful services to the complainant which is evident from the complaint of the complainant. As and when any complaint was received it was promptly attended by the authorized service centre. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
6. At the very out set it is admitted that the mobile in question having a warranty of one year from its purchase. From the perusal of
Amit Sharma Vs. Sonu Mobile etc.
…4…
the job sheet Annexure C-2 it reveals that the mobile in question having several problems i.e. application performance, usability failure, Cellular assess, bad transmission, audio no incoming and over- heating of battery, but the opposite party No.1 has failed to remove the defects from the mobile set of the complainant and returned the same to the complainant having same problem. Again the complainant deposited the mobile set in question with opposite party service centre vide job sheet dated 27.1.2016 Annexure C-4 which clearly shows that the mobile set having some defects and the opposite parties have failed to rectify the defects. The opposite parties have failed to file any reply of the complaint of the complainant. The evidence produced by the complainant goes un-rebutted because the opposite party No.1 and 2 did not bother to appear and they were proceeded against ex-parte. The opposite party No.3 manufacturer has appeared but the defence of opposite party No.3 was struck off due to not filing of written statement within stipulated period. In these circumstances, the version of the complainant is believable as the mobile set having some manufacturing defects which could not be removed by the opposite parties. We are of the view that it is the prime duty of the service centre to rectify the problems arose in the mobile set but they did not do so.
7. Hence, in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that deficiency in service is established on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to replace the mobile set with new one of the same
Amit Sharma Vs. Sonu Mobile etc.
…5…
model or to pay the cost of mobile i.e. Rs.5364/-. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The order be complianced within 30 days from the date of receiving of certified copy of order, failing which the opposite parties will pay an interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 2.2.2016 till its realization. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.
Announced on: 8.7.2016
President,
Member Member District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind
Amit Sharma Vs. Sonu Mobile etc.
Present: Sh. Amit Sharma complainant in person.
Sh. Abhishek Singla Adv. for opposite party No.3.
(defence already struck-off)
Opposite parties No.1&2 already ex-parte.
Arguments heard. To come up on 8.7.2016 for orders.
President,
Member Member DCDRF, Jind
4.7.2016
Present: Sh. Amit Sharma complainant in person.
Sh. Abhishek Singla Adv. for opposite party No.3.
(defence already struck-off)
Opposite parties No.1&2 already ex-parte.
Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
President,
Member Member DCDRF, Jind
8.7.2016
