Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/75/2017

Daljit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Speedy Marketing - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sant Partap Singh

31 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

Consumer Complaint  No. 75 of 2017

                                                     Date of institution : 07.11.2017                                   

                                                    Date of decision    : 31.07.2018

Daljit Singh aged about 28 years S/o Sh. Sukhdarshan Singh R/o Village Sandhrauli, Tehsil Nabha District Patiala.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Speedy Marketing, Unit No.1, Khewat Khasra No.373/400, Mustatil No.31, Village Taoru, Tehsil Taoru, District Mewat, on Bilaspur-Taoru road Mewat, 122105, Haryana ( India).
2. New Bawa Communication, service centre situated at Masale Wali Gali, Railway road, Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, through its partner/proprietor.
3. Micromax Informatics Ltd., 21/14-A, Phase II, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi-110028 through its concerned authorized signatory, ( Landline phone number: 011-49790000.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                            

            Sh. Inder Jit, Member

 

Present :        Sh. Jagjot Singh, Adv.Cl. for complainant.

                      Opposite Parties exparte.

 

ORDER

 

By Inder Jit, Member

                      Complainant, Daljit Singh aged about 28 years S/o Sh. Sukhdarshan Singh R/o Village Sandhrauli, Tehsil Nabha District Patiala, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.           The complainant purchased a Micromax Mobile hand set model Canvas 6 Pro from OP No.1 on dated 30.04.2017 online from Amazon.in for a sum of Rs.8,999/-. OP No.1 gave warrantee/guarantee of one year for any defect in the mobile hand set and also assured that on any defect in the said mobile hand set, OP No.1 will return the amount of the hand set along with interest or to replace the same with new one of same price range.  In the First week of August 2017, the said mobile hand set created problems of Hang, Battery back up problem, auto switch off etc and on 01.11.2017 the complainant approached OP No.2 regarding the said defects/problems.  OP No.2 retained the hand set with it and promised to get the same after two days. Thereafter, when the complainant visited OP No.2 after two days, OP No.2 handed over the mobile to complainant and assured that the defects have been removed and now it will never create any problem in future.  But on using the mobile hand set, it has been found that the problem/defect has not been removed.  The complainant again approached OP No.2 on 03.11.2017 and told about the said problems created in the mobile hand set. OP No.2 again retained the mobile hand set with it and handed over the same to complainant on 04.11.2017 with the assurance that the defects have been removed and it will not create any problem and OP No.2 also issued job sheet to the complainant.  But the defects have not been removed and the mobile hand set is still creating the said problems.  The OPs, inspite of repeated visits by the complainant, totally refused either to replace the mobile hand set with new one or  to pay the like amount. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to replace the defective mobile hand set with new one or to refund the price of the mobile hand set i.e. Rs.8,999/- along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment and metal agony and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs. But OP No.1 chose not to appear to contest this complaint and was proceeded against exparte. Initially Sh. Bharat Verma, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.2 & 3 and filed reply but later on, he pleaded having no instructions from OPs No. 2 & 3 to appear on their behalf, hence OP No.2 & 3 were also proceeded against exparte.
4.  In reply to complaint OPs No.2 & 3 stated that no defect or problem has ever been created in the mobile hand set in question, rather the complainant has filed the present complaint with motive to get the new mobile hand set. The OPs denied the other allegations made in the complaint. However, during the pendency of the complaint,  Sh. Raghbir Singh, Proprietor of OP No.2 made a statement that they are ready to exchange the mobile hand with old one.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of bill Ex. C-2 and closed the evidence.
6.  Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the mobile hand set in question went out of order during August 2017  i.e only after three months from the date of its purchase in respect of the problems mentioned in the complaint.  The service centre of the manufacturing company of the mobile could not rectify the problems when visited twice or thrice. He further pleaded for exchange of the defective mobile hand set with a new one or refund of the price of the said mobile handset. Nobody appeared on behalf of the OPs.
7. We have gone through the written arguments, evidence produced, statement of Raghbir Singh(OP-2) etc and heard oral arguments of Ld. counsel for the complainant. We are of the opinion that the said mobile handset has not been repaired properly by the service centre of the concerned manufacturing company. Hence, we accept this complaint and direct the service centre of the concerned Manufacturing company (OP No.2) to examine the said defective mobile handset and repair it, even by changing the defective parts, if any, free of cost to the entire satisfaction of the complainant.  If it is not possible to repair it because of some manufacturing defect, then get it replaced with a new one of the same make from the manufacturing company(OP No.3) or arrange refund of the price of the mobile i.e. Rs.8,999/- Let this order be complied within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. We also find that complainant is entitled to lumpsum amount of Rs.3,000/- on account of compensation and litigation charges.
8. The arguments on the complaint were heard on 26.07.2018 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: 31.07.2018

(A.P.S.Rajput)       

       President

 

(Inder Jit)       

      Member