NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/308/2017

M/S. MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANIL SHARMA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. NANDWANI & ASSOCIATES

12 Jul 2017

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 308 OF 2017
 
(Against the Order dated 16/11/2016 in Appeal No. 682/2016 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
1. M/S. MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD.
21/14-A, NARAINA, INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE II,
NEW DELHI
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. ANIL SHARMA & ANR.
S/O. SHRI NATHU PRASAD SHARMA, R/O. BAZAAR CHOWK, BHILAI-03, TEHSIL PAATAN
DISTRICT- DURG
CHHATTISGARH
2. M/S. VASU MOBILE REPAIRS
JAIN PLAZA SHOP NO. 120B, C.M.D. CHOWK, BILASPUR,
DISTRICT-BILASPUR
CHHATTISGARH
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate
For the Respondent :

Dated : 12 Jul 2017
ORDER

Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondents.  However, an Application has been received from the Complainant for providing legal aid.

        Having regard to the quantum of amount involved, we do not find it to be a fit case for providing legal aid to the Complainant.  However,

-2-

we have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner on merits and perused the material on record.

        Regard being had to the fact that the Petitioner Company had chosen not to file its response (Written Version) to the Complaint, and the Appeal preferred by them against the order dated 11.08.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (for short “the District Forum”) was belated, we also barred by limitation, we do not find any Jurisdictional error in the impugned order, affirming the finding recorded by the District Forum to the effect that the Mobile Phone instrument in question did suffer from manufacturing defect and its non-replacement amounted to deficiency in service on the part of all the Opposite Parties, including the Petitioner who is the manufacturer of the Mobile instrument.  The said finding is affirmed accordingly.

However, bearing in mind the price of the mobile set, i.e., ₹7,900/- we feel that the amount of compensation of ₹30,000/-, awarded by the District Forum towards mental agony in addition to interest @ 12% p.a. on the said amount, and affirmed by the State Commission, is on the higher side.  Consequently, the Revision Petition is partly allowed to the extent that the Petitioner Company shall be liable to pay to the Complainant a compensation of ₹20,000/- instead of ₹30,000/- as awarded by the Fora below.  Rest of the directions are maintained.

-3-

        The entire amount due in terms of the orders passed by the Fora below, along with the travel and allied expenses as directed vide our order dated 28.03.2017, shall be remitted by the Petitioner directly to the Complainant by means of a Demand Draft, drawn in his favour, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

        The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.    

 

 

 
......................J
D.K. JAIN
PRESIDENT
......................
M. SHREESHA
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.