DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 7.2.2017
Decided on: 20.12.2017
P.S.Mittal aged about 70 years son of late Sh.Amar Singh Mittal R/o House No.20, Gurdarshan Nagar, Near 24 No.Railway Phatak, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. The Managing Director, Micromax Informatics Ltd.,Micromax House, 90-B, Sector 18 Gurgaon (Haryana)-122015, through its Managing Director.
2. The Manager , Mobile Tech. Micromax Check Point, B-1, Ranjit Plaza adjoining Hotel Jiwan Plaza, Bhupindera Road, Patiala.
3. A-One Communication, Dharampura Bazar, Patiala through its Prop./Partners.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Chamandeep S. Mittal, Advocate,
counsel for the complainant.
Sh.Vipin Sharma, Advocate, counsel for
opposite parties No.1&2.
Opposite party No.3 ex-parte.
ORDER
SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER
- The complainant purchased one mobile phone of Micromax bearing IMEI No.911450700653046/911450700653053 from OP no.3 vide invoice No.2732 dated 8.4.2016 for an amount of Rs.2000/-.The complainant has alleged that since the very first day of the said purchase, the complainant has been facing various problems in the said mobile phone but in the 2nd week of August,2016, the said mobile phone got switched off automatically and showing No Power. Accordingly the complainant contacted OP no.3 who directed him to contact Op no.2 i.e. the service centre of the company. On 10.8.2016, the complainant got the mobile phone deposited with Op no.2 and OP no.2 told the complainant to come after one week. The complainant visited OPno.2 time and again to collect the mobile phone but Op no.2 kept on lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant being an aged person of 70 years of age underwent a lot of physical as well as mental harassment at the hands of the OPs. Since 10.8.2016, the mobile phone is lying with OP no.2, who has neither repaired nor returned the mobile phone to the complainant which amounted to deficiency in service on its part. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986.
- Ops No.1&2 appeared through counsel and filed their reply to the complaint. Whereas OP no.3 failed to appear despite service and was thus proceeded against ex-parte.
- In the written statement of OPs No.1&2, the only plea taken by them is that the mobile phone of the complainant was repaired within a week but the complainant himself did not turn up to collect his mobile phone despite repeated requests made by OP no.2. Thereafter, the complainant came and demanded the refund of the price of the mobile phone which OP no.2 refused and showed his inability to do the needful. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.C A affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C6 and closed the evidence of the complainant.
In view of the statement made by the ld. counsel for OPs No.1&2 theevidence of contesting OPs was closed by order.
-
-
-
-
ANNOUNCED
DATED: 20.12.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER