Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/448/2016

Sh. Surjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Director Micromax Informatics Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Aruna Sachdeva

17 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/448/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	20/06/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	17/04/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Surjeet Singh son of Sh. Amar Nath, resident of House No.1526 BA, Abdullahpur Colony, Pinjore.

……… Complainant.

Versus

 

1.   The Director, Micromax Informatics Limited, B-82, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110064.

 

2.   The Manager, Combined Electronics & Electricals, Shop No.7, Shopping Complex, Chandimandir Cantt.

 

3.   M/s Abacus Systems, SCO 54, 1^st Floor, Near Post Office Sector 30-C, Chandigarh – 160030, through its Managing Director.

……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SMT.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Mrs. Aruna Sachdeva, Advocate.
For OP No.1	:	Ex-parte.
For OP No.2	:	None
For OP No.3	:	Ex-parte.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

          Briefly the facts giving rise to the present Consumer Complaint are that the Complainant bought one Micromax E455 mobile handset from Opposite Party No.2 on 29.11.2015 for Rs.10,900/- vide Bill Annexure C-1. The said mobile phone started giving problems relating to display and network right from the onset. As per the Complainant, he switched off the phone, but it could not be switched on ever after. The Complainant contacted the Customer Care and the said mobile phone was replaced with a new one on 23.03.2016 vide Annexure C-2 by Opposite Party No.1. It has been alleged that the new mobile phone also had the same problem. This time, on the asking of the Customer Care, the Complainant took the mobile handset to the Service Centre i.e. Opposite Party No.3 on 05.04.2016 vide Annexure C-3. The Complainant was given the mobile handset on 25.04.2016 after repairs, but when he checked the mobile handset there at the Service Centre itself, to his dismay, the same problem persisted. The Complainant, therefore, left the mobile handset with the Opposite Party No.3 (Service Centre) vide job sheet dated 25.04.2016 (Annexure C-4). Thereafter, the Complainant went to the Service Centre a number of times to get his mobile phone back, but every time he was put off on one pretext or the other. Eventually, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 18.05.2016 upon the Opposite Parties, but to no success. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.

 

3.      Opposite Party No.1, initially, appeared through Sh. Amandeep Singh, Advocate on 11.08.2016 and the case was adjourned for filing their reply and evidence. However, subsequently neither the reply and evidence were filed nor anybody put appearance on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, therefore, it was also proceeded ex-parte.

 

4.      Opposite Party No.2 resisted the complaint by filing their written reply, inter alia, pleading that it had no responsibility whatsoever after the sale of the mobile phone. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and have also perused the record.

 

7.      In the present case, the averments of the complaint have gone unrebutted in the absence of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 who were duly served and preferred neither to appear in person, nor through their Counsel. At any rate, it is only Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 who can clarify about the responsibility of Opposite Party No.2 after the sale of the mobile phone in question, to corroborate the defence taken by the Opposite Party No.2, but, pertinently, they chose not to appear before this Forum. Thus, it is legitimately proved that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. Moreover, the grievance of the Complainant remained unaddressed despite serving of legal notice dated 18.05.2016. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against them.

 

8.      In the light of above observations, the present complaint succeeds against the Opposite Parties. The same is allowed qua them. We direct the Opposite Parties as under:- 

(i)  To refund Rs.10,900/- being the invoice price of the mobile handset to the complainant.

(ii) To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

 (iii) To also pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

9.      This order be complied with by Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr. No. (i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr. No.(iii) above.
10.      The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

17^th April, 2017                                                  

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

       PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER