DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.142 of 04-05-2015

Decided on 28-10-2015

Nasib Singh S/o Bhupinder Singh R/o Dasmesh Nagar, Street No.2, Maur Mandi, Tehsil Maur, District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.M/s Sharma Telecom, Thana Road, Maur Mandi, Tehsil Maur, District Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Owner.

2.M/s Unitech # 6328/2481, Bangi House Street, Mehna Marg, Near Old Bus Stand, Bathinda, through its Manager/Owner.

3.Micromax Infomatics Limited, 9/52/1, Kirti Nagar, Industrial Area, New Delhi-110015, through its Managing Director/Director.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.G.S Brar, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.H.S Dhillon, counsel for opposite party No.1.

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

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President:-

1. The complainant Nasib Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties M/s Sharma Telecom and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on the assurance of opposite party No.1, he purchased one Micromax mobile handset model A-108 for Rs.9600/- vide invoice dated 26.8.2014 from opposite party No.1, manufactured by opposite party No.3.

3. It is alleged that the mobile handset is not working properly since its purchase. After sometime from the date of purchase of the mobile handset, its touch function was not working properly. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 and asked it to replace the mobile handset with new one, but opposite party No.1 backed out from its promise to replace the mobile handset with new one. Later on, opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to approach opposite party No.2, the authorized service centre of Micromax. On 16.10.2014, the complainant approached opposite party No.2, it after checking the mobile handset, kept the same in its custody and asked the complainant to take the delivery of mobile handset in question on 28.10.2014.

4. It is further alleged that on 28.10.2014, the mobile handset was returned to the complainant by opposite party No.2 with the assurance that it has been repaired and is working properly, but again it started creating problems. The complainant again approached opposite party No.2, it returned him the mobile handset on next day on the same false assurance.

5. It is further alleged that the touch function of the mobile handset stopped working on 13.3.2015. It was again handed over to opposite party No.2 through job sheet and is still lying with opposite party No.2. The complainant requested opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to solve his problem, but they misbehaved with him. As per the complainant, there is some manufacturing defect in the mobile handset in question.

On this backdrop of the facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and directions to opposite parties either to replace the mobile handset with new one or to refund its price i.e. Rs.9600/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of its purchase till realization. Hence, this complaint.

6. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel. Opposite party No.1 contested the complaint by filing its written version. In written version, opposite party No.1 raised the preliminary objections regarding maintainability of complaint, concealment of material facts.

7. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased one mobile handset. It is further added that at that time, the complainant was explained that the warranty is by company only. In case, there would be any defect in the mobile handset, the complainant would himself go to service centre. After carefully reading, the complainant put his signatures on the bill. It is pleaded that if there is any problem, opposite party No.1 is not responsible and it is responsibility of opposite party Nos.2 and 3.

After controverting all other averments, opposite party No.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8. No written version had been filed by opposite party Nos.2 and 3 within stipulated period. As such, the case was posted for evidence of parties.

9. Parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence.

10. In support of his version, the complainant tendered into evidence photocopy of legal notice, (Ex.C1), photocopies of job sheets, (Ex.C2 and Ex.C3); photocopy of retail invoice, (Ex.C4) and affidavit of Nasib Singh dated 10.8.2015, (Ex.C5).

11. Opposite parties have failed to produce their evidence despite repeated opportunities and warning of last opportunities. As such, their evidence was closed by order.

12. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the file carefully.

13. Admitted facts are that the complainant has purchased one mobile handset for Rs.9600/- from opposite party No.1, bill (Ex.C4) proves this fact. The complainant has alleged that the mobile handset started creating problems. Job sheet dated 13.3.2015, (Ex.C2) proves that it is lying with opposite party No.2 being the service centre of opposite party No.3. Ex.C3, is another job sheet dated 16.10.2014, which proves that the mobile handset started creating problems. The mobile handset was purchased on 26.8.2014 and complainant has handed over the same to opposite party No.2 on 13.3.2015, which proves that the complainant has used the mobile handset for about 6 months. In such circumstances, the prayer of the complainant for replacement of the mobile handset is not considered justified. As per the complainant, the mobile handset started creating problems and it required repair. The job sheets prove that the mobile handset is with opposite party No.2.

14. Opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have not come forward to rebut the claim of the complainant, In such circumstances, there is no reason to accept that the mobile handset is not creating problems and require no repair. Although, the complainant has purchased the mobile handset from opposite party No.1, but the complainant has placed on file bill, (Ex.C4) in which it is clearly mentioned that the warranty is only by company. The complainant has not disputed this condition, which is part of terms and conditions. As such, no relief can be granted against opposite party No.1.

15. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party Nos.2 and 3 and dismissed qua opposite party No.1 without any order as to cost. Opposite party Nos.2 to 3 are directed to handover the mobile handset to the complainant after repair as per terms and conditions of warranty.

16. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

17. This case could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency.

18. 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:-

28-10-2015

(M.P Singh Pahwa)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member