DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.223 of 01-04-2014

Decided on 23-09-2014

Subash Chander @ Monu aged about 42 years S/o Budh Ram R/o H.No.6969, Guru Nanak Pura Mohalla, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Allied Telecom, Shop No.9, SSD Sabha, Subhash Market, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner.

2.UNI TECH Computerized Mobile Service Centre, Gali Bangi House, Mehna Marg, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner.

3.Micromax Informatics Limited, Plot No.21/14, Block-A, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-110028, through its MD.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Chander Mohan, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Naresh Garg, counsel for the opposite party No.1.

Sh.Amit Ghai, counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 and 3.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased one mobile handset of Micromax-A110 bearing IMEI No.911239259400549 and 911239259655548 for Rs.11,000/- vide bill No.2412 dated 3.4.2013 from the opposite party No.1, manufactured by the opposite party No.3 with one year warranty. At the time of selling of the abovesaid mobile handset the opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that it is of best quality and there is no complaint regarding its functioning and assured him to provide best services. The abovesaid mobile handset started giving the problems relating to auto switch 'off' and 'on' and 'hang'. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1, it asked him to approach the opposite party No.2, the authorized service centre of the opposite party No.3. In the last week of December, 2013, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2, its officials provided some formal repair to the abovesaid mobile handset and returned it to him after about 15 minutes and assured him that there would be no problem in future in it, but in the first week of March, 2014, the mobile handset in question again started giving the problems. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.2, it again provided some formal service to the abovesaid mobile handset. After repair the abovesaid mobile handset again started giving the problems relating to battery back-up and Sim phone MMC not showing besides the previous problems of auto switch 'off' and 'on' and 'hang'. The complainant again took the abovesaid mobile handset to the opposite party No.2 on 18.3.2014, it provided the service to the mobile handset in question and returned it to him with the assurance that there would be no problem in future in it, but to no effect. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.2, it retained the abovesaid mobile handset vide job sheet No.8617 dated 27.3.2013 and asked him to collect it on 28.3.2014. Thereafter the complainant many times visited the opposite party No.2, but the problem could not be cured, as the mobile handset in question is continuously giving the same problem. The abovesaid mobile handset is well within the warranty period and there is some manufacturing defect in it. The complainant requested the opposite party No.2 to replace the defective mobile handset with new one, but to no avail. The mobile handset in question is still lying deposited with the opposite party No.2. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties either to replace the abovesaid defective mobile handset with new one or in alternative to refund him its price i.e. Rs.11,000/- besides cost and compensation.

2. The opposite party No.1 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that at the time of purchase of the abovesaid mobile handset the opposite party No.1 clearly conveyed the complainant that the warranty of one year is given by the opposite party No.1 on behalf of the opposite party No.3, the manufacturer.

3. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that they never denied to provide their after sale services to the complainant as assured under the terms of the warranty and are still ready to provide the same subject to the terms of the warranty. As per the complainant, he has purchased the abovesaid mobile handset on 3.4.2012 and approached the opposite party No.2 in the month of December, 2013 after the expiry of warranty period. The authorized service centre repaired the mobile handset in question and sent SMS to the complainant to collect it, but he never turned up to collect his mobile handset. The mobile handset in question is ready with the authorized service centre and complainant can collect it after producing necessary documents such as original job card issued by the opposite party No.2. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 further pleaded that the user manual clearly provides that the mobile handset will be repaired 'free of charges' by them if it is covered under the warranty. As per the limited warranty terms, the replacement is limited only to those case in which the repair is not possible and or where there is genuine problem of repeated repairs of the same problem.

4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

6. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased one mobile handset of Micromax-A110 bearing IMEI No.911239259400549 and 911239259655548 for Rs.11,000/- vide bill No.2412 dated 3.4.2013 from the opposite party No.1, manufactured by the opposite party No.3 with one year warranty.

7. The complainant contended that the abovesaid mobile handset started giving the problems relating to auto switch 'off' and 'on' and 'hang'. In the last week of December, 2013 the complainant approached the opposite party No.2, its officials provided some formal repair to the abovesaid mobile handset and returned it to him after about 15 minutes with the assurance that there would be no problem in future in it, but in the first week of March, 2014, the mobile handset in question again started giving the problems. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.2, it again provided some formal service to the abovesaid mobile handset. Despite repair of the abovesaid mobile handset, it again started giving the problems relating to battery back-up and Sim phone MMC not showing besides the previous problems of auto switch 'off' and 'on' and 'hang'. The complainant again took the abovesaid mobile handset to the opposite party No.2 on 18.3.2014, it provided the service to the mobile handset in question and returned it to him with the assurance that there would be no problem in future in it, but the problems are still in existence. The opposite party No.2 retained the abovesaid mobile handset vide job sheet No.8617 dated 27.3.2013 and asked the complainant to collect it on 28.3.2014. The complainant many times visited the opposite party No.2, but it has failed to repair the mobile handset in question, as the defect is not rectified by the opposite party No.2. Since then the mobile handset in question is lying deposited with the opposite party No.2.

8. A perusal of documents placed on file Ex.C4, the job sheet dated 18.3.2014 shows that the complainant has deposited the mobile handset in question with the opposite party No.2 with the problem relating to 'battery backup+SIM phone MMC not showing + hang+auto off'. Thereafter the mobile handset in question has been deposited with the opposite party No.2 on 27.3.2014 vide Ex.C3, in this job sheet the warranty remarks are given as 'I/W' and nature of complaint as 'Auto off + hang'.

9. From the evidence placed on file by the complainant it is clear that the defect has occurred in the abovesaid mobile handset after its usage of approximately more than 11 months. The complainant has mentioned in his complaint that in the month of December, 2013 he has took his mobile handset to the opposite party No.2 for repair, but there is no such evidence placed on file. There is no record to prove that the abovesaid mobile handset is repaired in the month of December, 2013 and has been taken to the service centre by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant alleged that the defects occurred in the first week of March, 2014, regarding this he has produced the job sheet dated 18.3.2014 showing the defects regarding 'battery backup+SIM phone MMC not showing + hang+auto off', meaning thereby the defects have occurred on 18.3.2014 just few days before the expiry of the warranty period. The second job sheet dated 27.3.2014, Ex.C3, is regarding the defects of 'auto off +hang'. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the repaired mobile handset is laying with the opposite party No.2, but there is no evidence regarding it.

10. Thus keeping in view the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has purchased the mobile handset in question on dated 3.4.2013 vide bill No.2412, Ex.C2 and same became defective in the month of March, 2014, in this regard the complainant has placed on file job sheets dated 18.3.2014 and 27.3.2014, meaning thereby he has taken the optimum use of the abovesaid mobile handset during this period and there is no evidence placed on file to show that any defect has occurred prior to this.

11. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above this complaint is accepted with Rs.1000/- as cost against the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and dismissed qua the opposite party No.1. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are directed to repair the mobile handset in question to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and at the same time the complainant will sign the satisfaction note after receiving the repaired mobile handset in question.

12. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

23-09-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh) Member