This is a discussion on Micromax within the Mobile Handset forums, part of the Mobile category; Consumer Complaint No: 379/2009 Date of presentation: 17.11.2009 Date of decision: 11.01.2010 Shri N.D. Sharma, R/O Village Parsa, P.O. Lowerkoti, ...
Consumer Complaint No: 379/2009
Date of presentation: 17.11.2009
Date of decision: 11.01.2010
Shri N.D. Sharma,
R/O Village Parsa, P.O. Lowerkoti,
Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, HP.
M/S Ravi Electronics and Photostat,
Main Bazar, Opposite State Bank of India,
Rohrru, District Shimla,
Through its Proprietor Shri Ravi Sood.
For the complainant: Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party: Exparte.
O R D E R:
Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The complainant Shri N.D. Sharma, has filed this complaint, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers, that, on, 26.03.2009, he purchased one mobile of Micromax from the OP, for a sale consideration of Rs.3525/- vide bill No.1831. It is averred that, when, the aforesaid mobile was purchased, by him, from the OP, he was assured that the warranty period of the hand set, is, one year and case of any defect arising within the warranty period, the hand set will be replaced without any charges. The complainant further proceeded to aver, that in the month of October, 2009, some defect arose in the hand set, hence, the set was given to the OP, for doing the needful. He avers, that, the OP instead of getting the handset replaced, returned the same without any repair, though replaced the original battery, yet, it was replaced with the duplicate. He also misbehaved the complainant and used vulgar remarks. Hence, feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the act of the OP, the complainant avers that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP, and, accordingly, the relief to the extent, as detailed in the relief clause, be awarded in favour of the complainant.
2. Notice of this complaint was issued to the OP-Company, for 22.12.2009, though AD. However, the OP, despite valid service through RAD, failed to put in appearance before this Forum and also did not prefer to file any reply to the averments averred against him in the complaint. As such, vide zimni order dated 22.12.2009, the complaint was ordered to be heard exparte against the OP.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.
5. The grouse of the complainant, as ventilated in this complaint, is, that, the mobile set, so purchased by him, from the OP, on, 26.03.2009, went out of order within the warranty period, and the OP, failed to either make it functional or replace the same, with a brand new set.
6. The complainant in support of his averments, as asserted in the complaint, has placed on record a copy of the bill Annexure C-1, which candidly divulges, that the Micromax mobile phone, was purchased from the OP, for a sale consideration of Rs.3525/-. In addition to this, the complainant has also filed his own affidavit, in support of the complaint. Since, the allegations, as made in the complaint by the complainant, hence, have remained un-repulsed and un-benumbed, on record by non-adduction of rebuttal evidence on behalf of the OP, as such, the only inference which sprouts, from, the above, is, that the allegations as asserted in the complaint, are, true and correct. Hence, it is held that the mobile set so purchased by the complainant, from the OP, was suffering from inherent manufacturing defect, as such, it went out of order within the warranty. However, failure of the OP, to make it functional and operative and also to replace it with a brand new set, tantamounts to both a deficiency in service, and an unfair trade practice. In our considered view, it was not only incumbent upon the OP, rather, obligatory, to have made it either functional or replaced with a brand new one set.
7. Consequently, we allow this complaint and direct the OP to refund the sale consideration of the Mobile hand set, to the tune of Rs.3525/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, with effect from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 17.11.2009, till actual payment is defrayed to the complainant. In addition to this, the OP, is also saddled with damages of Rs.1500/- for causing inconvenience, pain and suffering to the complainant, and also for the reason that he did not put in appearance before this Forum, notwithstanding the fact that, he was duly served by way of registered RAD. The complainant, is, directed to return the defective mobile set to the OP, on receipt of the amount aforesadid. The litigation cost is quantified at Rs.1,000/- payable by the OP, to the complainant. This order shall be complied with by the OP, within a period of one month, after the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The learned counsel for the complainant has undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, whereas, a certified copy of this order shall be sent to the OP through UPC, for compliance. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
Click here to Become Premium Member