BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                                Complaint Case no.76 of  2017       

                                                          Date of Institution:          31.3.2017

                                                          Date of Decision:     05.12.2017

Himanshu minor son of Shri J.S. Jakhar, through his guardian J.S. Jakhar, resident of E-9, CDLU Campus, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                                                                  ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Unique Sales Corporation, Authorized Company show-room, through its authorized Incharge Opp. Head Post Office, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa.

2. YUreka Customer Care, Micromax, House, 90-B, Sector-18, Gurgaon- 125055.

3. M/s Shree Communications Jain Market, Sadar Bazar, Near Masjid Sirsa (Haryana)

                              ……… Opposite parties.

          Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT

SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.

Present:           Sh. Saurabh Nagpal, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. V.S. Sihag, Advocate for opposite party no.1.

Opposite parties no.2 and 3 exparte.

ORDER

          The complainant who is minor has filed the present complaint through his father and natural guardian Sh. J.S. Jakhar.

2.                In brief, case of complainant is that complainant purchased one Mobile set make Eureka Plus YU5510A from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.10,800/- vide invoice No.25746 dated 2.4.2016 with one year guarantee/ warrantee. That just after few days of its purchase, the display of the said mobile set gone out of order as the mobile set suffered from hanging problem, auto off and on, wifi slot/ mode not working properly, charger of the mobile set also not functioning and as such the mobile set of the complainant rendered useless. The complainant approached the op no.1 and complained about the problem/ defects in the mobile and op no.1 checked the mobile set thoroughly and was satisfied about the complaints and found the defect in the mobile set due to manufacturing defect but the op no.1 did not redress the grievance of the complainant and sent him to op no.3 being the authorized care centre of the company. The op no.3 after checking of the defects in the mobile set and considering the same as is outcome of manufacturing defect, got replaced the mobile set vide endorsement dated 27.5.2016 but the replaced mobile set also did not work properly as the mobile set suffered the same problem. The complainant again approached the ops and complained about the defects in the mobile and op no.3 got deposited the mobile set from complainant vide job sheet dated 16.6.2016 and after that op no.3 handed over the mobile set to the complainant with an assurance that the mobile set is OK and all the problems have been removed but very surprisingly the complainant was shocked to detect that the problem in the mobile set has never been removed. The complainant approached the ops time and again and ops gave false assurances of replacement of the mobile but the same has not been replaced rather same was handed over back to the complainant in the same condition and when after the lapse of sufficient time, the complainant again approached the ops and demanded the new set, the ops instead of replacing the mobile set refused to redress the grievance of the complainant. The complainant also got served legal notice dated 1.10.2016 upon the ops and the ops just in order to pacify the complainant have replaced the defective mobile set with another one bearing Model YUSS10A on 21.10.2016 but the ops in furtherance of their own wrongs have supplied the completely defected set vide replacement endorsement dated 21.10.2016 and the said mobile set also suffered the problem/ defects after the short time. That due to the act and conduct of the ops the complainant has undergone unnecessary harassment and humiliation. Hence, this complaint.

3.                On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement wherein it is submitted that para no.2 of the complaint regarding purchase of the mobile by the complainant from op no.1 is admitted but no warranty and guarantee has been given by op no.1 as alleged. The op no.1 is only the authorized dealer of op no.3. The complainant never approached the answering op. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.

4.                Ops no.2 and 3 did not appear despite notices and therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.

5.                The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, bill Ex.C1, copy of job sheet dated 16.6.2016 Ex.C2, copy of job sheet dated 25.11.2016 Ex.C3, copy of legal notice Ex.C4, postal receipts Ex.C5 to Ex.C7. On the other hand, op no.1 produced affidavit Ex.R1.

6.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.1 and have perused the case file carefully.

7.                The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. It is proved on record that complainant purchased the mobile in question from the opposite party no.1 on 2.4.2016 for a sale consideration of Rs.10,800/- as is evident from bill Ex.C1. It is also proved on record that the above said mobile in question of the complainant developed certain defects within a short period and even after repairs the defects could not be removed. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties also replaced the mobile in question for two times but even the replaced mobiles could not work properly and suffered from same defects. The manufacturing company i.e. op no.2 and op no.3 authorized service centre of the company have failed to appear before this Forum rather opted to be proceeded against exparte. Thus, the pleadings and evidence of the complainant against service centre and manufacturing company qua manufacturing defects in the mobile purchased by the complainant and in the mobiles replaced by the ops no.2 and 3 have gone unrebutted and unchallenged. We are of the considered view that ops are deficient in service and the complainant has to suffer a lot due to above said defective mobiles supplied by the ops and the complainant is entitled to the refund of the price of the mobile in question after some deduction as depreciation.

8.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.7800/- to the complainant after deduction of Rs.3000/- from the price of the mobile in question of Rs.10,800/-. We also direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2200/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. This order should be complied by all the ops jointly and severally within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.7800/- from the date of order till actual payment. The complainant will have to deposit the mobile in question alongwith accessories, if any to op no.3 within 15 days from today.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum.               Member                       President,

Dated:5.12.2017.                                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                            Redressal Forum, Sirsa.