BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.25/17.
Date of instt.: 16.01.2017.
Date of Decision: 15.09.2017.
Satish Kumar S/o Sh. Abhey Ram, R/o Village Sisla-Sismor, Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Dashmesh Jee Telecom, 2527, Hudson Line, GTB Nagar, Delhi through its proprietor.
- M/s. Parth Agencies (Haryana), C/o City Centre, Ist floor, Inside Railway Gate, Kaithal, Mobile No.9896017526 through its Manager.
- Micromax Informatics Ltd., 697, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Udhyog Vihar, Gurgaon, through its Authorized Representative.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Sandeep Rana, Advocate for complainant.
Op No.1 already exparte.
Sh. Vinod Bura, Advocate for the opposite party.No.2.
Sh. Sunil Dhull, Adv. for Op No.3.
ORDER
(HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a mobile set Micromax, Model E-481 bearing IMEI No.911457552324642 & 911457553574641 from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.11,000/- vide invoice No.7892 dt. 12.02.2016. It is alleged that after some time, the said mobile set became defective due to technical problem in the said mobile set. It is further alleged that the complainant deposited the said mobile set with the Op No.2 i.e. service-centre of Ops on 26.12.2016 but the Op No.2 did not remove the technical problems from the said mobile set. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.2 & 3 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.1 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 02.03.2017. Op No.2 filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction and evasively denied all the facts mentioned in the complainant and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Ld. counsel for the Op No.3 made statement on 03.04.2017 that he does not want to file separate reply and the reply filed on behalf of Op No.2 may also be read on behalf of Op No.3.
4. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and closed evidence on 30.05.2017. On the other hand, the Ops No.2 & 3 did not tender any evidence despite availing several opportunities, so, the evidence of Ops No.2 & 3 was closed vide order dt. 24.07.2017 of this forum.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence available on the file.
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, we found that the mobile set in question was purchased by the complainant on 12.02.2016 and the same became defective within the warranty period, as is clear from the job-sheet dt. 26.12.2016, Ex.C2, wherein it is mentioned in the column of problem reported “4406 AUDIO APPLICATION AUDIO”. The grievance of the complainant is that despite repair, the defects were not removed by the Ops. The complainant has filed the present complaint in this forum on 16.01.2017 i.e. within the warranty period. Besides the above-said job-sheet, the complainant has supported his versions by affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and original bill dt. 12.02.2016. Whereas, on the other hand, the Op No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 02.03.2017 and Ops No.2 & 3 also did not tender any evidence despite availing several opportunities, so, the evidence of Ops No.2 & 3 was closed by order of this forum dt. 24.07.2017. Hence, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged against the Ops. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Ops have adopted the act of unfair trade practice and are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
7. Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to replace the defective mobile set of the complainant with the new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant vide invoice No.7892 dt. 12.02.2016. However, it is made clear that if the said mobile as purchased by the complainant, is not available with the Ops, then the Ops shall refund Rs.11,000/- as the cost of mobile to the complainant. The Ops are also burdened with costs of Rs.1100/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges to the complainant. All the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.15.09.2017. (Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
