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

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

Karam Chand son of Sh. Jai Gopal Sharma, resident of H.No. 1338/9, Phase-II, Mohali.

                                                 ---Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]   X-Zone, Micromax Check Point, 1^st Floor, 824, Above India Bank, NAC Manimajra, Chandigarh, through its Executive Incharge.

[2]       Arora Pen Service, Cute Corner, SCO No.71-72-73, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:          MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        PRESIDING MEMBER

                    SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU          MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Suresh Kumar, Adv for the Complainant.

OPs ex-parte.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.           The instant complaint relates to alleged deficiency in service for providing a defective mobile phone and also not repairing it within the period of warranty.

              Briefly put, the Complainant had purchased a Micromax GC 275 number 910023500181379, A100013138094D from Opposite Party No.2 for Rs.2950/- on 16.08.2010 as per invoice Annexure C-1. The Complainant had been told that the battery back-up of the mobile set was for minimum 12 hrs. a day. However, when the Complainant started using the said mobile phone, he found that the battery back-up was for ½ hr. only and he had to charge the mobile many time in the day.

              On advice of Opposite Party No.2, the Complainant visited Opposite Party No.1 the Service Centre of the company with his problem. A job card was issued to him on 18.04.2011 (Annexure C-3). Thereafter, the Complainant visited the Opposite Parties a number of times, but each time he was told that the mobile handset had not yet been repaired.

              The Complainant then served a legal notice dated 9.6.2011 upon the Opposite Parties for redressal of his grievance. As no action was taken by the Opposite Parties to either replace or repair the mobile handset, he has filed the instant complaint, with a prayer for replacement/ refund of the amount, along with compensation and costs of litigation.     

2.           After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the Opposite Parties. However, despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, therefore, these were proceeded against exparte on 23.11.2011 and the matter was fixed for ex-parte arguments.

3.           Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

4.           We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and have gone through the documents on record.

5.           It is evident from the job sheet (Annexure C-3) placed on record by the Complainant that the Opposite Party No.1 is in possession of the mobile handset of the Complainant since 18.04.2011 and has not yet been able to repair it. This date is well within the period of warranty and hence, the Opposite Party No.1 would be liable for deficiency in service to the Complainant. Even though the Complainant has not impleaded the Manufacturer as a party to the present complaint, but we feel that the Dealer has provided the mobile handset to him and is equally liable for the products supplied by it to the customer. The service center is in possession of the defective mobile handset and hence is also liable for deficiency in service.

6.           As Opposite Parties have failed to contest the claim of the Complainant, all the averments of the complaint go unrebutted.

7.           Hence, the complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties. We direct the Opposite Parties to jointly and severally:-

[a]   Refund Rs.2950/- being the invoice price of the mobile handset in question.

[b]   Pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation costs.

8.           The aforesaid order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, they would be liable to pay the aforesaid amount, along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of receipt of phone by the Service Center i.e. 18.04.2010, till the date of actual payment, besides paying Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. 

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

Announced

13^th January, 2012.                                                       

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER