BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.392 of 2016
Date of Instt. 09.09.2016
Date of Decision: 04.07.2017
Kishore Kumar S/o Sh. Bidhu Ram R/o 17, Vivek Vihar, New GTB Nagar, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Vikalp Ventures-SAMA, Khasra No.15/17, 24, G/F Village Samalkha, City Delhi, State Delhi, Pin-110037.
2. M/s Sehaj Tele Care, 1st Floor, Gulati Complex, Near DLF Mall, Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar-144001.
3. Micromax Informatics Ltd., 21/14A, Phase-II, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi-110028.
.........Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. HS Bhatia, Adv Counsel for complainant.
OP No.1 give up.
OP No.2 & 3 exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint filed by complainant, wherein alleged that he purchased a Mobile Micromax Canvas Spark Q380 8GB Rom Black IMEI No.911429305785163, through online on 01.07.2015 from OP No.1 and the said mobile was ordered through Snapdeal online company. The above said mobile phone was purchased vide invoice/bill No.S8CFCD/15-16/2162 dated 01.07.2015 for a sum of Rs.5325/- which was paid in cash at the time of delivery. Since this mobile phone was sent by OP No.1 through Courier Service, so the amount of Rs.5325/- was paid in cash to delivery boy of the Courier Service.
2. The OP No.3 is the manufacturer of the above said phone and OP No.2 is the service centre of the OP No.3. That a manufacturing defect was found in the above said mobile and the same was handed over to OP No.2 on the instructions of OP No.1 and 3, as the OP No.2 is the service centre of the OP No.3. The OP No.2 provided to the complainant the receipt regarding mobile phone vide Job Sheet No.2122046-0116-21357884, which is dated 15.01.2016. The mobile phone was not showing the correct timing. The mobile was under the warranty period at the time, it was handed over to OP No.2 i.e. M/s Sehaj Tele Care, 1st Floor, Gulati Complex, Near DLF Mall, Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar for the repair.
3. The original mobile Micromax Canvas Spark Q380 8GB Rom Black, IMEI No.911429305785163 was not delivered back, but an old mobile A290 bearing IMEI No.911379250202609, No.911379250503105 was delivered on 15.03.2016 by way of swapping to the complainant. That the mobile A290 was also defective, the same was not in working order and was also a battery problem in this mobile set. Then again a mobile set A290 was handed over to OP No.2, which issued a fresh job sheet bearing No.2122046-0416-23035698 dated 23.04.2016. That again there was a defect in this mobile set and there was a defect in the mobile screen/display and this mobile set was again handed over to the OP No.2. This mobile phone has neither been repaired, nor replaced, till today and the same is still lying with OP No.2. This mobile set was handed over to OP No.2, vide job sheet No.21220046051623566990 dated 26.05.2016, but this job sheet was never handed over to the complainant. Thereafter complainant issued a notice dated 24.06.2016 to OP No.1 and 2. After the issuance of notice, the OP No.2 played a mischief with the complainant and issued the job sheet mentioning therein that all the disputes and claims are subject to exclusive jurisdiction of Delhi Court only, whereas no such wording/remarks are mentioned in the previous job sheets. That despite the notice, neither the mobile set has been repaired nor the same has been replaced by new one. Due to that complainant suffered mental tension, agony, loss of finance and loss of time and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the present complaint may be allowed and the OPs may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.5235/- as a cost of mobile set and further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages and also pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to opposite parties but despite service, opposite party No.2 and 3 did not come present and ultimately, they were proceeded against exparte.
5. On the other hand, the complainant given up OP No.1 vide his statement that he does not want to proceed against the OP No.1 i.e. Vikalp Ventures, so he give up the OP No.1.
6. In order to prove his exparte claim, complainant alongwith his counsel tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Mark C1 to Mark C9 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file very minutely.
8. From the very outset, it is established by the complainant by leading cogent and convincing evidence that he had purchased a mobile set from OP No.1, after making a payment of Rs.5325/- and the said mobile set was delivered to the complainant by courier service at his residence. Copy of the invoice is Mark C1 and Mark C2A and in order to prove that there is material defect in the mobile phone which could not be cured and moreover the original mobile was not delivered back instead of that the old mobile phone was delivered which was also a defective one and in order to prove these factum, the complainant has brought on the file photocopies of the job sheets Mark C2, Mark C3 and Mark C4, itself established that there are many problems in the mobile set in regard to applications performance/usability failure, applications crashes, applications error message, charging/battery no charging, low battery capacity and power switches off etc and these factum have been mentioned in the Job Sheets but despite repeated request, the OP could not able to rectify the said defect which means that there is a some material defect which is not repairable and moreover, the original mobile was not delivered back instead of that the old mobile phone was delivered which was also a defective one. Therefore, the version of the complainant remains un-rebutted and un-challenged and under these circumstances, we have no earthly ground to discard the exparte evidence of the complainant and therefore, we reached to the conclusion that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.
9. In the light of above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and opposite parties No.1 to 3 are directed to return the price of the mobile set, so purchased by the complainant i.e. Rs.5325/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 01.07.2015 till realization and further OP No.1 to 3 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- for harassment to the complainant and also directed to pay the litigation expenses of Rs.1000/-. The entire compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of order. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
04.07.2017 Member President
