Haryana

Gurgaon

CC/134/2010

Sachdev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Micromax House - Opp.Party(s)

13 Feb 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM  GURGAON-122001.

                                                                                                                                       Consumer Complaint No.134 of 2010                                                                                                                                                          Date of Institution: 23.02.2010                                                                                                                                                                            Date of Decision: 13.02.2015

Sachdev Singh aged about 29 years s/o Sh. Guljari Lal, R/o Village Indri, Tehsil Nuh, District Mewat, Chamber No.74-A, District Courts, Gurgaon.

                                                                                        ……Complainant.

 

                                                Versus

 

1. Micromax House, 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon (Haryana) through its Manager.

 

2. RT Outsourcing Services Ltd, B-19, 2^nd Floor, Sector-14, Old DLF Gurgaon (Micromax Authorized Service Centre) through its authorized representative.

 

                                                                                       ….Opposite parties.

                                               

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986                                                                  

 

BEFORE:     SH.RAGHVINDER SINGH BAHMANI, PRESIDENT.

                     SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER.

 

Present:        Sh.C.P.Sharma, Adv for the complainant.

                    Sh. Satyavir Sharma, Adv for OP-1

                    Representative of OP-2

 

ORDER       R.S.BAHMANI, PRESIDENT.    

 

              The complainants alleged that he has purchased Micromax Mobile Phone X-116 IMEI No.910001501859067 manufactured by OP-1 from Tarun Cell Point, Shop No.2, Devi Lal Stadium, Sohna for a sum of Rs.2100/- vide Bill No.2691 dated 23.04.2009 (C-1). The above said Mobile Phone became defective on 10.11.2009. Consequently, he deposited it with OP-2 vide Customer Call cum Service Slip dated 10.11.2009 with the remark “Not getting On” (C-2 showing status pending). It is further alleged that till date the Mobile Phone has not been repaired and the OPs are evading the matter on one pretext or the other. Thus, the OPs are deficient in providing services to the complainant. He prayed that he is entitled to replacement of the Mobile Phone with new one ad to pay Rs.50,000- as damages. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents referred above.

2                 OP-1 in its written reply while denying the claim of the complainant has taken the objections that the complaint is gross abuse of process of law, totally uncalled for and is not maintainable. The complainant failed to produce any documentary evidence on record to support his allegation of defect in the handset. The complainant also failed to adduce any expert report to support his case. The Warranty period covers the range of faults that ensure normally from mechanical functioning of the Mobile set without any interference or outside influences. The complainant never visited to OP-2 to collect the Mobile Phone though there is no manufacturing defect in the handset. The answering OP never denied to provide its services under the Warranty and is still ready for the same under the terms of Warranty. Thus, the complaint is false, frivolous and liable to be dismissed. The written reply is supported with an affidavit of Shri Aditya Sheet, General Manager-HR of OP-1 Company.

3                 OP-2 in its written reply has alleged that complainant approached OP-2 on 10.11.2009 with the problem “Phone Not Getting On” and a Job Sheet dated 10.11.2009 was issued to him. On proper diagnosis and test it was realized by the Service Centre of OP-2 that its Mother Board was needed to be changed and for that purpose a request/purchase order would be sent to OP-1 which could take some time. However, in the month of  April, OP-1 had issued direction to OP-2 to transfer all pending cases to M/s Innovative Tele System, another Service Provider of OP-1 and all the products pending for repair including the complainant’s handset were delivered to M/s Innovative Tele System vide Delivery Challan No.1326 dated 27.04.2010 (OP-2/A). It is further alleged that OP-1 has various Service Partners/Service Providers across the country and as per the provisions of the Service Agreement entered into between OP-1 and OP-2, OP1 has the power to transfer the business of one service partner/service provider to another service provider and the same was exercised by OP-1 in the present case. Accordingly, OP-2 intimated the complainant to follow up the matter with M/s Innovative Tele System. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs against the answering OP.

4                 We have heard the parties and appraised the material on record carefully. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed above and after perusing the record available on record we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has purchased Micromax Mobile Phone X-116 IMEI No.910001501859067 manufactured by OP-1 from Tarun Cell Point, Shop No.2, Devi Lal Stadium, Sohna for a sum of Rs.2100/- vide Bill No.2691 dated 23.04.2009 (C-1). The complainant has alleged that within two months from the date of purchase of Mobile Phone it became defective on 10.11.2009 and consequently, it was deposited with OP-2 vide  Customer Call cum Service Slip dated 10.11.2009 (C-2) with the problem reported as “Not Getting On”. The complainant alleged that OPs failed to repair the Mobile Phone till date. However, the above version of the complainant is supported by OP-2 in its written reply wherein OP-2 has specifically mentioned that Mother Board of the said Mobile Phone was required to be changed which means the Mobile Phone of the complainant is defective.  OP-2 has also admitted that OP-2 kept regular follow ups with OP-1 for said part but OP-1 had shown their inability to provide the same due to short supply of the same, thus, OPs failed to repair/replace the defective part of the Mobile Phone despite best efforts of the complainant and compelled him to knock the door of this Forum though it was within Warranty and it became defective within two months from the date of its purchase.  Thus, the OPs are deficient in providing services to the complainant.

5                 Consequently, the complainant is entitled to replacement of the Mobile Phone with new one of the same Model or refund its price Rs.2100/-. The OPs have harassed the complainant causing mental agony and thus, he is entitled to compensation and cost of litigation Rs.3,000/-.

Compliance be made within 30 days.

Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.

 

Pronounced in open court.                           

Dated: 13.02.2015.

                                                                                                           President,

                                                                                  District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                                                                                      Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

                 (Jyoti Siwach)

                       Member