Jyoti filed a consumer case on 14 Sep 2016 against The Director/Manager of M/s Micromax House in the DF-II Consumer Court. The case no is CC/491/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 09 Nov 2016.
Chandigarh
DF-II
CC/491/2016
Jyoti - Complainant(s)
Versus
The Director/Manager of M/s Micromax House - Opp.Party(s)
1. The Director/Manager of M/s Micromax House No.90-B, Sector 18, Gurgaon 1220115.
2. The Concerned Manager/Director, M/s Seema Communications, Booth No.26, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh.
3. Concerned Official of Micromax Care Abacus Systems (Authorized Service Centre), SCO No.54, 1st Floor, Near Post Office, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh.
…. Opposite Parties.
BEFORE: SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT
SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER
Argued by: Complainant in person.
OPs exparte.
PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT
In brief, the case of the complainant is that she purchased a mobile phone make Micromax Bolt Q 326 Champ vide invoice dated 13.03.2016 for Rs.3800/-, having warranty of one year. However, from the very beginning of its purchase, the mobile phone was not working properly and used to hang frequently. She landed the mobile phone in question with the service center i.e. OP No.3 for repairs vide job sheet dated 23.04.2016. Thereafter she visited the service center to collect the mobile phone but she was informed that the same was sent to Head Office, Delhi for repairs. She alleged that the mobile phone has not been returned despite her repeated requests/visits, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint.
Despite due service through registered post, the Opposite Parties failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.08.2016.
We have heard the complainant, in person, and have gone through the documents on record.
In her exparte evidence, the complainant has tendered her duly sworn affidavit reiterating the averments as made in the complaint alongwith the documents. She has also placed on record a copy of the invoice vide which she purchased the mobile phone in question. She has also tendered a copy of the job sheet dated 23.04.2016 whereby she handed over the mobile phone in question to the authorized service center (OP No.3).
The evidence led by the complainant has also gone unrebutted and uncontroverted as nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the OPs to refute the allegations made in the complaint despite due service. It can, thus, be concluded without any hesitation that either they admit the claim of the complainant or have nothing to say in the matter.
In our considered view, the OPs have failed to render after sale services to the complainant under the warranty period which itself amounts to deficiency in service, as also indulgence into deficiency in service on their part.
In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed as under ;-
To handover the mobile phone in question to the complainant after its repairs or in the alternative to refund its price i.e. Rs.3800/-.
To pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
To pay Rs.1,000/- as litigation expenses.
This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.
Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.
Announced
14/09/2016
Sd/-
(RAJAN DEWAN)
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(PRITI MALHOTRA)
MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.