E-Paper
Shop, service centre and mobile firm penalised for failing to redress complaint
City-based shopkeeper, a service centre and Micromax Informatics Limited failed to appear before the forum
The district consumer disputes redressal forum has directed a city-based shopkeeper, a service centre and Micromax Informatics Limited to refund ₹25,000 – the cost of mobile – and pay a compensation of ₹13,000 to a city youth for not addressing his grievance related to “defunct” mobile.
Jatinder Verma, a resident of Phase-3B2, Mohali, had filed a complaint against Om Sales in Sector 18-D, Chandigarh; Luxmi Communication, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh, and Micromax Informatics Limited, Gurugram.
Verma said he had bought ‘Micromax E4820 Dual Sim’ mobile handset from Om Sales on February 15, 2018 for ₹25,000 with a warranty of 12 months. But after three months, the mobile handset stopped working due to some manufacturing problems.
It was given to Luxmi Communication (service centre), who after rectification of the defects, returned the handset. However, after a few days, again, the same problems persisted. The matter was again reported to the service centre, who retained the handset for its replacement, but eventually refused to replace the handset.
At last, Verma filed a complaint with the district consumer disputes redressal forum, alleging that these acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
A notice was sent to the opposite parties seeking their version. However, despite the notice, nobody appeared on their behalf, therefore, the case proceeded ex-parte.
“The non-appearance of the opposite parties shows they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant. In the present circumstances, it is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the complainant is genuine and he has been made to run from pillar to post for no fault on his part,” the forum mentions.
The forum stated that the opposite parties have “certainly and definitely indulged in unfair trade practice” as they ought to have initiated steps to redress the grievance of the complainant promptly, which they failed to do.
The opposite parties were jointly and severally directed to refund ₹25,000, being the invoice price of the mobile handset to the complainant; to pay ₹7,500 as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him and ₹5,500 as litigation expenses.
