Haryana

Ambala

CC/58/2018

Ramesh Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Verma General Store & Communication - Opp.Party(s)

02 Aug 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No. :  58 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution   :  12.02.2018.

                                                          Date of decision      :  02.08.2019.

 

Ramesh Singh s/o Shri Ram Chandra Singh, r/o Naib Colony, Kanwala, Jandli, Ambala City, District Ambala (Haryana).

……. Complainant.

                                                    Versus

 

1. Verma General Store & Communication, Shop No.8, Mata Rani Chowk, Jandli, Ambala City (Through its dealer of Micromax Mobile).
2. Micromax M/S Cell Point (HR) Shop No.113/1, IDGAH Road, Near SAI Hospital, Ambala Cantt 134001 (Through its Service Manager).
3. Customer Care Office: Micromax Informatics Ltd., 90B, Sector-18, Gurgaon, Haryana-122015, India (Through its Service Manager/GM).
4. Bhagwati Products Ltd., Plot No.18, Sector2, IIE, Pantnagar, Rudrapur, US Nagar, Uttrakhand-263153 (through its G.M.).

     ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                 

                            

Present:       Shri Sandeep Kashyap, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                   OPs No.1,2 & 4 ex parte.

Shri H.S. Baidwan, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.3.                 

 

ORDER:     SH. VINOD KUMAR SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To replace the mobile or to refund its cost amounting Rs.12,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of its purchase till its payment.
2. To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay the litigation expenses.  
   382.  

                   Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is serving in Army and permanent resident of Naib Colony, Kanwala, Jandli, Ambala City. The OP No.1 is dealer, OP No.2 is service centre shop, OP No.3 is the main service centre and OP No.4 is manufacturer of mobile in question. He purchased Micromax mobile Q4310, Model Code 7000017320 having IEMI/ESN No.911563550790765, 911563551790764 from the OP No.1 for Rs.12,000/- vide bill No.1481 dated 25.06.2017. On 15.07.2017, the said mobile set started giving problem like software, 4222 CELLULAR ACCESS (3G) and network not functioning. On 16.07.2017, he approached to OP No.1, who advised to show this problem to authorized service centre i.e. OP No.2. Accordingly, he went to OP No.2 and its representative checked the problem and advised him to deposit the mobile and get it tomorrow after repair. On the next date when he went to OP No.2, then its representative advised that there is major defect in the mobile, so it could not be repaired in this service centre and the mobile will be sent to the main service centre i.e. OP No.3. Thereafter, the mobile was sent to OP No.3 at Gurgaon for five times, but its defect could not be repaired. After seven months, the mobile handed over to him without repair. The said mobile set giving problem to him since the date of its purchase. The mobile set was within the warranty and the OPs failed to rectify its defect. This way, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Separate registered notices were issued to OPs No.1,2 & 4, but none has turned up on their behalf, accordingly they were proceeded against ex parte vide orders dated 31.08.2018, 26.12.2018 & 30.10.2018 respectively.

                   Upon notice, the OP No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written version stating therein that there is no defect/manufacturing defect in the mobile handset qua OP No.3. The complainant failed to produce any documentary proof/evidence to establish any alleged defect/manufacturing defect thereof. In the absence of any test report, it may be assumed that the mobile set do not have any defect/manufacturing defect. The complainant even failed to produce the mobile in question at the time of filing the present complaint for due inspection by this Hon’ble Forum. The mobile set is still lying with the complainant and there is every possibility that he has deliberately and mischievously defected/tampered the same. The service centre of OP No.3 duly repaired the mobile and handed over the same to him immediately/within reasonable time. The defect in the mobile is solely due to mishandling by the complainant, for which, the OP No.3 is not responsible. It is the responsibility of the customer(s) to ensure that the mobile handset is not mishandled, dropped, exposed to water, liquid damage, tampered and getting the mobile set repaired from any unauthorized centre/local mechanic. The OP No.3 through its authorized service centre had duly informed the complainant that the damage is not covered under the warranty. Under the warranty terms & conditions, the complainant has to bear cost of repair, when damage is not covered under warranty. As a goodwill gesture by OP No.3 and without prejudice to the rights of OP No.3 and without admitting any averment/allegation in present complaint, OP No.3 offered complainant to replace his/her existing mobile set, in case the same is having defect, but the complainant refused the fair offer of the OP No.3. The complainant failed to submit records of his telephone number to show that complainant remained without active phone at any given point of time. There is no deficiency on the part of OP No.3 and the complaint filed by the complainant against it, may be dismissed with exemplary costs.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexure C1 to C4 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.3 tendered affidavit as Annexure OP3/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP3/1 & OP3/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP No.3.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                 The learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the version as mentioned in the complaint and prayed for allowing the present complaint.

6.                Similarly, the learned counsel for the OP No.3 reiterated the version as mentioned in its reply and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

7.                From the perusal of case file and material on record, admittedly, the complainant had purchased the mobile in question from the OP No.1. The complainant alleged that the mobile in question started giving problem like software, 4222 CELLULAR ACCESS (3G) and network not functioning and firstly he went to OP No.2 and thereafter on its advise, he visited to OP No.3. He further argued that the mobile was sent to OP No.3 at Gurgaon for five times, but its defect could not be rectified. Lastly, after seven months, the mobile set handed over to him without repair. On the other hand, main argument of the learned counsel for the OP No.3 is that the defect in the mobile is solely due to mishandling by the complainant, for which, the OP No.3 is not responsible. The OP No.3 was duly informed the complainant that the damage is not covered under the warranty and the complainant has to bear cost of repair. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the OP No.3 has not produced any report of technician/engineer of its service centre, who checked the mobile in question, to prove that the mobile was damaged due to mishandling by the complainant. To support his case, the complainant produced copy of Bill as Annexure C-1, job-sheets as Annexure C-2 to C-4. On the other hand, as stated above, the OP No.3 did not produce any cogent and convincing evidence in its support and without which, the contention of the OP No.3, is not believable. From the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is clearly established that the mobile in question became defective within warranty period and the OPs have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant, as such, they are deficient in providing the services to the complainant.  

8                 In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint against the OPs. They are directed to comply with the following directions jointly and severally:-

1. To replace the defective mobile in question with the new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant. If they are not in position to replace the same of the same model, then refund the amount of Rs.12,000/-.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                   The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :02.08.2019.

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)           (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                  Member             President