Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/689/2014

Ramesh Kumar Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Micromax House - Opp.Party(s)

23 Feb 2015

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/689/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	16/10/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	23/02/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Ramesh Kumar Yadav S/o Sh. Rajpati Yadav, R/o Jawahar Navodya Vidhalya, Rakouli, Post Office Jhingran Kalan, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali.

 

….Complainant

Versus

 

 

[1]  The Micromax House, Head Office: Micromax House 90-B, Sector 18, Gurgaon – 122015, through its Manager.

 

[2]  M/s SP-AKS Telecom, Authorized Service Centre Micromax, SCO 1092, Sector 22-B, 1^st Floor, Cabin No.10/11, near TATA Croma Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

 

[3]  National Watch House, SCO 1031, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

 

….Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:    SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU  PRESIDING

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                MEMBER

          

          

Present:      Sh. Harvinder Singh, Counsel for Complainant.

Opposite Parties ex-parte.

 

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

1.      Briefly stated, the Complainant had purchased one Micromax A114 mobile handset on 23.02.2014 from Opposite Party No.3 for Rs.11,300/-, vide bill Annex.C-1. It has been alleged that since very beginning the said mobile handset was not working properly as it was getting switched off automatically. The matter was reported to Opposite Party No.3, on whose directions the Complainant to approached the Opposite Party No.2 (authorized Service Centre), where the software of the mobile handset was updated. However, when the Complainant again encountered similar problem, on the asking of Opposite Party No.2, he handed over the mobile handset, in question, with it (Opposite Party No.2). It has been averred that the mobile handset is still lying with the Opposite Party No.2. Thereafter, the Complainant took up the matter with the Opposite Party No.1, but no positive response could come out (Annexure C-2 to C-6). When all the frantic efforts made by the Complainant with the Opposite Parties to either replace or repair the mobile handset in question, failed to fructify, as a measure of last resort, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, he has filed the instant Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties despite service, therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte on 15.01.2015.  

 

 

3.      Complainant led evidence.

 

 

4.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant and have also perused the record.

 

 

5.      The ex-parte evidence of the file shows that the Complainant purchased one Micromax A114 mobile handset from Opposite Party No.2 on 23.02.2014 for a sum of Rs.11,300/- vide Annexure C-1. As per the case of the Complainant, the mobile handset in question started giving problem in the beginning. The matter was reported to the Opposite Parties a number of times. Annexure C-2 to Annexure C-5 are the various e-mail communications between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.1 for the rectification of the defect in the mobile handset. Opposite Party No.1 vide Annexure C-5 (e-mail) requested the Complainant to re-submit his mobile handset at the Service Centre (Opposite Party No.2). Annexure C-6 is the Job-Sheet dated 28.7.2014 vide which the mobile handset was handed over to the Opposite Party No.2 for necessary repairs. Pertinently, so many e-mail communications did not give any fruitful result. The mobile handset in question was neither repaired nor returned to the Complainant and it is lying in the possession of the Opposite Party No.2, till date.

 

 

6.      It is important to note here that Opposite Parties have not appeared to contest the claim of the Complainant and preferred to proceed ex-parte which draws an adverse inference against them. The evidence of the Complainant has gone unrebutted against them.

 

 

7.      We feel that non-providing of the proper services, non-rectification of the defect in the mobile handset that too keeping the same in their possession even being the mobile handset within the warranty period certainly caused physical and mental harassment to the Complainant, which proves deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

 

8.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are directed, jointly and severally, to:-

 

 

[a]  To replace the defective mobile handset of the complainant with a brand new one of the same make, model & configuration, with fresh warranty. 

 

[b]  To pay Rs.7,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[C] To pay Rs.4,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

 

9.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; failing which, the Opposite Parties shall be liable to refund the cost of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.11,300/- as well as compensation amount of Rs.7,000/- along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 16.10.2014 till realization, besides litigation expenses.

 

 

10.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced

23^rd February,2015                                      

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER