Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/116/2016

Gaurav S/o Raghbir Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Ashoka Mobile Store - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Sharma

16 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 116 of 2016.

                                                                                    Date of institution:11.04.2016

                                                                                    Date of decision: 16.08.2016.

Gaurav aged about 31 years son of Sh. Raghbir Lal Sharma resident of H. No. 147, Sector-17, Yamuna Nagar, PIN No. 135001.

                                                                                                                          …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. The Ashoka Mobile Store, 4-5, Hira Building Railway Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Proprietor/ Partner.
2. M/s Grover Computers & Electronics, 11A, First Floor, Opposite Barnala Shopping Mall, Nehru Park, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar 135001 through its Partner/ Proprietor.  
3. Micromax House, 90-B, Sector 18, Gurgaon PIN-122015 through its Managing Director.

 

                                                                                                            …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Bharat Kumar, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Respondent No.1 given up vide order dated 27.07.2016.

              Respondents No.2 & 3 already ex-parte.

              

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant  Gaurav has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to replace the defective tab with new one of latest model or to refund the bill amount of Rs. 6600/- alongwith interest  and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased a mobile/ Tab make Micro Max Model P 480 from OP No.1 on 23.08.2015 for a sum of Rs. 6600/- vide bill No. 4403 dated 23.08.2015 (Annexure C-1) manufactured by OP No.3 whose service centre is OP No.2.  In the month of February, 2016, the said tab phone started creating trouble and its charging system became defective, due to which the complainant contacted the Op No.1 on 13.02.2016. On this, OP No.1 told to him to contact the Op No.2. The complainant contacted the Op No.2 who issued a job sheet No. NO50126021621894352 and assured him to collect the tab after a week in perfect condition. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the OP No.2 to collect his aforesaid Tab/Mobile on 29.02.2016 and the Op No.2 handed over the aforesaid Tab/mobile to the complainant but the defect in the said tab remained same. After that complainant again contacted the Op No.2 on 05.03.2016 then OP No.2 told that they will keep the tab for testing and thereafter they will tell him that there is any defect in the said tab or not. The OP No.2 kept the Tab with them for testing and in this regard OPNo.2 issued a job sheet No. 4972 dated 05.03.2016 to the complainant. After that, Op No.2 admitted the fact that there is defect in the said Tab and they will send it to their head office at Karnal and only thereafter the defect in the said tab could be removed and OP No.2 issued a job sheet No. NO50126-0316-22302561 dated 07.03.2016 and told him to come after 15 days. As per advise of OP No.2, the complainant again contacted the OP No.2 on 23.3.2016 for collecting the said Tab/mobile but the OP No.2 again handed over the defective tab mobile to the complainant and stated that this mobile phone cannot be repaired as it has got manufacturing defect.  Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice OPs No.2 & 3 failed to appear despite service, hence they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.04.2016 & 13.06.2016 respectively. However, counsel for complainant has given up the OP No.1 being unnecessary party vide order dated 27.07.2016.

4.                     In support of his complaint, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Bill dated 23.08.2015 as Annexure C-1, Copy of job sheet dated 05.03.2016 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of job sheet dated 07.03.2016 as Annexure C-3 and closed his evidence.    

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

6.                     It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a mobile set in question from the OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.3 for a sum of Rs. 6600/- on 23.08.2015 which is evident from the copy of bill Annexure C-1.

7.                     Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards the job sheet bearing No. 4972 dated 05.03.2016 (Annexure C-2) and Job Sheet bearing No. 50126-0316-22302561 dated 07.03.2016 (Annexure C-3) and argued that the mobile set was not charging properly. From the perusal of this job sheet, it is evident that mobile set in question was under warranty as in the column of warranty status “yes” has been mentioned and in the column of complaint i.e. charging problem has been shown. The complainant has filed his affidavit (Annexure CW/A) which goes unrebutted in support of his complaint. The OPs No.2 & 3 did not bother to contest the complaint and remained ex-parte and as such the version of the complainant goes unrebutted. Moreover, from the perusal of the job sheet, it is clear that mobile set in question was having some problem in its charging during the currency of warranty period and due to that complainant might have suffered some mental agony, which constitute deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.2 & 3. Hence, we have no option except to partly allow the complaint of complainant.

 8.                    Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OPs No.2 & 3 to refund an amount of Rs. 6000/- being 90% of the total cost of mobile set to the complainant, subject to return of the old mobile set, within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to recover the interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the defaulting period. Order be complied within 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.16.08.2016.

 

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA    )

                                                                        MEMBER