Punjab

Hoshiarpur

CC/15/4

Pankaj Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. R.D. Badhan

11 Mar 2015

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  FORUM                     HOSHIARPUR
              (3RD FLOOR,  DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX, HOSHIARPUR)

                            C.C. No. 04/09.01.2015 
                                            Decided on:      11.03.2015

Pankaj Kapoor s/o R.N. Kapoor resident of Sant Nagar, Village Quilla Baroon, P.O. R.C. Camp, Near Chandigarh Road, Tehsil & District Hoshiarpur.
                                    Complainant
                        vs.

1.The Manager, M/s. Micromax, House 90B, Sector-18, Gurgaon-122015.
2.M/s. Resoursys through its Manager, 308, Mansarovar Building, 90, Nehru Place, New Delhi- 100019.
3.M/s. Friends Telecom, through its Manager, Sutheri Road, Near Nokia Care, Hoshiarpur - 146001.                            
                                    Opposite parties

 Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:    Sh. Naveen Puri,President.
              Mrs.Vandna Chowdhary, Member.
              Mrs. Sushma Handoo,Member. 

Present:      Sh.R.D.Badhan, counsel for the complainant.
             OPs No.1 to 3 - exparte. 

ORDER 
PER SUSHMA HANDOO, MEMBER
 1.         The complainant has filed the present complaint  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against  M/s. Micromax through its Manager and others (hereinafter referred to as OP No.1, OP No.2, OP No.3 respectively, for short) praying for a direction to refund Rs. 8,090/- , value of Micromax mobile phone  and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation costs.
2.         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he  had purchased a mobile phone Micromax canvas duet AE90 through www.shopclues.com on 28-07-14 from OP No 2. Right from day one, the phone had some defects like poor resolution, blurring of clicked image from rear camera, low sound volume at full setting, high battery draining even when not in use. After about 2 weeks, the LED flash of phone also stopped working. The phone was taken to OP. No 3-M/s Friends Telecom, authorized service center of OP No. 1 for repair. He juggled with phone for 2-3 hours and returned the same saying that the camera performance has been improved and the battery will stay longer. The complainant checked the working of camera but no improvement was observed. The complainant came back with phone in almost same bad condition. Thereafter, it got hanged with no function like calling, bluetooth, gaming etc.. The complainant had restarted mobile several times but to no avail. He went to OP No 3 again with the defects and the mechanic tried his best but could not rectify the defects. On asking about LED flash, OP No.3 told that the phone will have to  sent to company- OP No l to rectify the defects  and it will take a minimum of 25 days for the same. After two days, another major problem observed as when the complainant switched on the mobile data connection in CDMA sim, the phone responded the caller (to CDMA sim) that receiver is busy in another call and call to GSM sim the call doesn’t connect at all. Normal working restores when mobile data connection is switched off. Also it gets restarted when in use. The complainant took the phone immediately to OP No 3 who showed his helplessness to rectify the  same. Complainant handed over the phone to them to get it repaired. The job sheet number N100099-0914-12040252 dated 09.09.14 was provided to the complainant.  After about 20 days, the complainant called customer care to know status of his phone who told him to call after 15 days. Thereafter, OP no 3 handed over the phone to the complainant with the assurance that it has no problem now but he again found the same defects. The complainant again made a complaint dated 26.10.2014 through e-mail to OP no.1 and reminder  thereto on 01.11.2014 but no response was given by OP no.1. On 07/11/2014, the complainant received a vague reply from OP No 1. Then, the complainant issued a notice through registered post to the OPs for the refund of                 Rs. 8,090/- alongwith interest from the date of purchase i.e. 28.07.2014 but received no reply. Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Hence this complaint.
3.         Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs but despite service none has turned up on their behalf. So, they were proceeded against exparte.
4.           In exparte evidence, the complainant tendered  affidavit dated 05.03.2015 Ex. C-1, Retail invoice dated 27.03.2014 Ex. C-2, job sheet dated 09.09.2014 Ex. C-3, complaint dated 28.03.2014 Ex. C-4, Reply dated 07.11.2014 Ex. C-5, legal notice Ex. C-6, Postal receipts dated 26.11.2014 Ex. C-7 to Ex. C-9 and closed the exparte evidence.
5.        We have heard Ld. counsel for the complainant and have very carefully gone through the affidavit and documents on the file.
6.         Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued on the lines of his pleadings by way of complaint and requested for the relief sought.       
7.        We have anxiously considered  the contention of learned counsel for  the complainant in the light of evidence on record and have found that the stand of the complainant is supported  by the exparte evidence led by him in the form of affidavit Ex. C-1 and documents Ex. C-2  to Ex. C-9.  Ex. C-2 is the bill dated 28.07.2014 vide which the complainant had purchased Micromax Mobile phone from OP no 2  for Rs.8,090/-. Ex. C-3 is the job sheet dated 09.09.2014 vide which OP No.3 had received the mobile of the complainant for repair. Ex. C-4 is email dated 26.10.2014 vide which complainant made complaint and Ex. C-5 is reply dated 7.11.2014 of the same. Ex. C-6 is legal notice dated 22.11.2014 and Ex. C-7 to Ex. C-9 are postal receipts from where it is also evident that he had posted legal notice to OPs. 
         As the defect in the mobile phone started immediately after its purchase on 28.07.2014 and job sheet dated 09.09.2014 placed on the record by the complainant supports his stand further that the mobile in question had number of problems/defects in it and as the defects in the phone started within warranty and OPs failed to rectify the same inspite of visiting them time and again by the complainant.
 8.        The OPs were duly served but they did not care to contest the claim of the complainant and rebut the evidence led by him as aforesaid and  as such, it can be concluded without any hesitation that either the OPs admit the claim of the complainant or they have nothing to say in the matter. In this way,  the evidence led by the complainant goes unrebutted and unassailed. Thus, OPs are found deficient in providing the services to the complainant .  Therefore, the complainant is entitled to the main relief besides appropriate compensation and litigation costs. 
9.               As a result of the above discussion, the complaint filed by complainant is partly accepted exparte and the OPs are directed to refund Rs. 8,090/-, the cost of Micromax Mobile and to pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1000/- as litigation cost within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of 10,090/- from the date of complaint i.e. 09.01.2015 till realization. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record.
Announced.
11.03.2015

                              (Naveen Puri )
                                                         President 

        (Mrs.Vandna Chowdhary)    (Mrs. Sushma Handoo) 
                Member                            Member 

MK