Yogesh Mahajan son of Shri Mohinder Pal, resident of House No.6259/20, Gali No.18, Nawa Kot Amritsar, Mobile No.98155-44012.
Complainant
Versus
- Ragav Telecom shop No.13, Parkash Market, Opposite Railway Station, Amritsar through its Proprietor/ Partner. M.No. 9501612525.
- M/s.Perfect Mobile Repair Centre, Shop No.62, Urban Court Road, Near Railway Station, Amritsar, Mobile No.8566834034 and landline number 0183-5099494 through its Proprietor/ Partner.
- Micromax Informatics Limited, Micromax House 90B, Sector 18, Gurgaon Pin Code 122015.
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date).
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Yogesh Mahajan, in person.
For Opposite Party No.1: Given up.
For Opposite Party No.2: Exparte.
For Opposite Party No.3. Sh.Lalit Tuteja, Advocate.
Coram
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
Ms.Rachna Arora, Member.
Order dictated by:
Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member
1. The complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant purchased Mobile Model No.107 Micromax I.M.E.I. No.911417459324319 and 911417459627315 vide bill No. 899 dated 26.1.2016 for a sum of Rs.5800/- from Opposite Party No.1 and thus the complainant is consumer under the definition of the Act and is authorized to file the present complaint. The Mobile Set in question became defective approximately after there months and then the complainant handed over the same to Opposite Party No.2, but it could not be repaired and thus the Opposite Party has replaced the same with new one on 28.6.2016 with EMI No.91141745440300 and 911417454844303 and it hardly functioned for two months only and thereafter, the complainant handed over the same to Opposite Party on 7.9.2016 and the complainant visited the Opposite Parties so many times for its repair, but inspite of the request, the Mobile Set in question could not be repaired. The complainant went so many times with the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties failed to deliver the same, hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) Opposite Parties be directed to refund the cost of the Mobile Set in question of Rs.5800/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of purchase till the date of payment.
b) Compensation of Rs.30,000/- be also granted to the complainant on account of mental tension and harassment.
c) Cost of the complaint be also granted.
d) Any other relief in the alternative which this Forum may deem fit be also granted.
Hence, this complaint.
2. After notice to the Opposite Parties, the complainant vide statement dated 15.9.2017, has suffered statement that he does not want to claim against Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.2 duly served, but none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, hence Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte.
3. Opposite Party No.3 appeared through counsel, but did not file the written version despite availing sufficient opportunities. But however, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.3 has suffered statement that Opposite Party No.3 is ready to replace the product i.e. mobile Model No.A 107 Micromax with new one within one month from the date of statement i.e. 17.8.2017, as such, there is no need to file the written version on behalf of 3. But in response to the statement of ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.3, on the other hand, the complainant has suffered statement that the compromise settlement is not acceptable to him and as such, he wish to proceed further with the present complaint.
4. In his bid to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of job sheet Ex.C3 and closed his evidence.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments as made in the complaint and contended that the complainant purchased Mobile Model No.107 Micromax I.M.E.I. No.911417459324319 and 911417459627315 vide bill No. 899 dated 26.1.2016 for a sum of Rs.5800/- from Opposite Party No.1 and thus the complainant is consumer under the definition of the Act and is authorized to file the present complaint. The Mobile Set in question became defective approximately after there months and then the complainant handed over the same to Opposite Party No.2, but it could not be repaired and thus the Opposite Party has replaced the same with new one on 28.6.2016 with EMI No.91141745440300 and 911417454844303 and it hardly functioned for two months only and thereafter, the complainant handed over the same to Opposite Party on 7.9.2016 and the complainant visited the Opposite Parties so many times for its repair, but inspite of the request, the Mobile Set in question could not be repaired. The complainant went so many times with the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties failed to deliver the same, hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. But on the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.3 has suffered statement that Opposite Party No.3 is ready to replace the product i.e. mobile Model No.A 107 Micromax with new one within one month from the date of statement i.e. 17.8.2017, as such, there is no need to file the written version on behalf of 3. But in response to the statement of ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.3, on the other hand, the complainant has suffered statement that the compromise settlement is not acceptable to him and as such, he wish to proceed further with the present complaint. In view of this, the Opposite Party No.3 has impliedly admitted that there is certainly defect in the product in question, and it is not repairable and the Mobile Set in question is still lying with Opposite Party and in such a situation, we direct Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 jointly and severally to refund the price of Mobile Set in question amounting to Rs.5800/- to the complainant. Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 are also directed to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant on account of compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment including cost of litigation. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order; failing which, awarded amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a from the date of passing of order until full and final recovery. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 24.10.2017.
