Ravinder Kumar filed a consumer case on 18 Jul 2016 against SP-AKS Telecom in the DF-II Consumer Court. The case no is CC/329/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 17 Aug 2016.
Argued by: Sh.Ravinder Kumar, Proxy Counsel for Sh.Mukesh Verma, Adv. for the complainant.
OP exparte.
PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile phone make Micromax S A102 Doodle 3 vide invoice dated 15.05.2015 for Rs.6990/-, having warranty of one year. In March, 2016, the mobile phone stopped working as such he approached the OP who advised him to approach the service center of the mobile phone. Accordingly, he approached the OP on 16.03.2016 (Annexure C-2) who told him that there is a battery charging problem he was advised to collect it after 21 days. It has further been averred that he made a number of visits to OP to collect the mobile handset but the same has not been returned to him after its repairs. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
Despite due service through registered post, Opposite Party failed to put in appearance either in person or through any authorized representative and as a result thereof it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.06.2016.
We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
In his exparte evidence, the complainant has also placed on record the documents i.e. Annexures C-1 to C-3 in support of the averments made in the complaint. Annexure C-1 is the copy of the invoice vide which he purchased the mobile handset in question. Annexure C-2 is the copy of the warranty card. Annexure C-3 is the job sheet vide which he handed over the mobile handset in question to the OP. It is established from Annexure C-3 that the mobile handset in question was given to authorized service center on 16.03.2016 and the same has not been repaired/returned despite the repeated requests/visits of the complainant within the warranty period which itself amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
The complainant in the present complaint is seeking refund of price of the mobile phone in question. Though law on the point is well settled that if a defect can be rectified by repair/replacement of the defective part(s), there is no need to change the whole machine.
Furthermore, the OP despite due service did not care to contest the case and, as such, it can be concluded without any hesitation that either it admits the claim of the complainant or has nothing to say in the matter. Hence, the OP is deficient in rendering the promised services to the complainant.
In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed to change the battery, in case, the same is found to be defective, and handed over the mobile phone, in question, in working order to the complainant with a lump sum compensation of Rs.2500/.
This order be complied with by the OP, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till its actual payment.
Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.
Announced
18.07.2016
Sd/-
(RAJAN DEWAN)
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(PRITI MALHOTRA)
MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.