BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 160 of 2014
   Date of Institution: 2.12.2014
   Date of final order: 6.5.2016

Anil s/o Jai Inder Singh r/o village Hoshiarpur, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind.
                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
Vishal Communication near Singla Playwood railway road, Safidon, District Jind through its Propietor.
Micromax Company Micromax house, 90B, Sector-18, Gurgaon through its Managing Director.
M/s Sonu Mobile Shop, shop No.9 (basement) near Bharat Cinema, Jhanj gate, Batra Shopping Complex, Jind through its proprietor.

                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. D.B . Bhanwala Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Kaval Jeet Morkhi Adv. for opposite party No.1    
              Sh. Abhishek Singla Adv. for OP No.2
               (defence already struck-off) 
              Opposite party No.3 already ex-parte. 
         
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant  had purchased  one Micromax Mobile set for a sum of Rs.9500/- vide bill No.5824 dated 8.5.2014 from opposite party No.1which is 
            Anil Vs. Vishal Communication etc.
                    …2…
manufactured by opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 is authorized service centre. The opposite party No.1 has given one year warranty of the above said mobile. After some time of its purchase, the mobile set was not functioning properly and got defected. The mobile started switch off when the sim card was inserted in it and without sim card the mobile remained switch on. The complainant approached with opposite party No.1 and told about the defect of his mobile set. The opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to get his mobile repaired from opposite party No.3 who is authorized service centre of opposite party No.2.Thereafter, the complainant visited the care centre of opposite party No.2 several times for removing the defect of the mobile set  but the defect of the mobile set was not removed by the opposite party No.2. Since then the mobile has not been functioning properly and above said mobile set is lying dead. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to replace the mobile set with new one or to pay the cost of mobile set i.e. Rs.9500/- , a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony as well as to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. 
2.    Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared and filed the written statement stating in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no  cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint; the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum and the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. On merits, it is 
            Anil Vs. Vishal Communication etc.
                    …3…
contended that the opposite party No.2 only is responsible for warranty and if any defect occurred then its service centre is liable to set right the mobile set. The complainant never informed about any such defect in his mobile to the answering opposite party. The mobile set was selected by the complainant at his own choice and same was sold by the answering opposite party in sealed and packed condition. All the other allegations have been denied by the answering opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with costs is prayed for. 
3.    Reply not filed by opposite party No.2 despite last opportunity. Hence, the defence of opposite party No.2 is struck off vide order of this Forum dated 24.6.2015.
4.    Notice issued to opposite party No.3 received back served but none has come present on behalf of opposite party No.3. Hence, opposite party No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 12.1.2015.
5.     In  evidence, the complainant has produced  cash memo Ex. C-1, copies of job sheet Ex. C-2 and Ex. C-3 and affidavit of complainant Ex. C-4 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 has produced the affidavit of Sh. Vivek Kumar, Proprietor Ex. OP-1 and closed the evidence.
6.    We have heard the arguments of Ld. Counsels of all the parties and perused the record placed on file. The complainant has purchased the mobile phone for a sum of Rs.9,500/- on 8.5.2014(Ex. C-1) and the 
            Anil Vs. Vishal Communication etc.
                    …4…
same has started giving trouble from the very beginning. The Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that the mobile set started switch off when the sim card was inserted in it and without sim card the mobile remained switch on. 
7.    On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1has argued that the mobile set was selected by the complainant at his own choice and same was sold by the answering opposite party in sealed and packed condition and there was no fault on the part of the answering opposite party. 
8.    We have gone through the cash memo Ex. C-1 as well as copies   of job sheet Ex. C-2 and Ex. C-3 and also gone through the affidavit of the complainant Ex. C-4 it is very much clear from the perusal of the jobs sheet dated 18.10.2014 and 18.11.2015 i.e.   Ex. C-2 and Ex. C-3 respectively that there was “ power does not switch on” problem in mobile. Beside this the complainant has filed this complaint within warranty period and mobile in question having one warranty. On the other hand, the respondents have not filed any document that the mobile in question having no problem. The opposite parties also failed to file the affidavit of the Engineer who had removed the defects of the mobile of the complainant at the time of job sheet. It is proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint is allowed in the interest of jusitce and opposite parties No.2 and 3  are directed  to replace the mobile in question of the complainant with a new one of same model  having same price and if the same model is not available then to refund the cost of mobile with interest@9% p.a. 
            Anil Vs. Vishal Communication etc.
                    …5…
from the date of order.  Order be complianced within one month from the date of order.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.
Announced on: 6.5.2016

                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind

        Anil Vs. Vishal Communication etc.
                    
Present:  Sh. D.B . Bhanwala Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Kaval Jeet Morkhi Adv. for opposite party No.1    
              Sh. Abhishek Singla Adv. for OP No.2
               (defence already struck-off) 
              Opposite party No.3 already ex-parte. 
         

             Arguments heard. To come up on 6.5.2016 for orders. 
                                    President,
        Member                Member      DCDRF, Jind
                                 4.5.2016

Present:  Sh. D.B . Bhanwala Adv. for complainant.
          Sh. Kaval Jeet Morkhi Adv. for opposite party No.1    
              Sh. Abhishek Singla Adv. for OP No.2
               (defence already struck-off) 
              Opposite party No.3 already ex-parte. 
         
         Order announced, vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                         President,
        Member                Member      DCDRF, Jind
                                 6.5.2016