DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 1492/2015
No. __________________ Dated : ____________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
VINOD KUMAR S/o LATE SH. RAM AVTAR,
R/O H. No.-32, PANA UDYAN,
NARELA,DELHI-110040. …COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. THE MANAGER,
MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD.,
90-B, SEC-18, GURGAON, HARYANA.
2. M/s GOSWAMI COMMUNICATIONS,
(MICROMAX SERVICE CENTRE),
2143, BAWANA ROAD,
NARELA, DELHI-110040. …OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 16.11.2015
Date of Decision: 04.05.2018
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs underthe Consumer Protection Act, 1986 therebyalleging that the complainant purchased one mobile on 11.03.2015 vide invoice no.1842 of Rs.2,000/- from Nitin & Co., Narela and the mobile
CC No. 1492/2015 Page 1 of 4
phone suddenly stopped working and the same was taken to the service centre i.e. OP-2 on 16.05.2015 and OP-2 illegally demanded an amount of Rs.450/- despite the fact that the mobile phone was in warrantee period. The complainant further alleged that he went to OP-2 several times but an amount of Rs.450/- was demanded from the complainant for repair of the mobile phone and on refusal of the complainant to pay the amount, officials of OP-2 misbehaved with the complainant and the complainant was also threatened to be involved in false criminal cases. A legal notice dated 20.06.2015 was also sent to the OPs but OPs did not take any actionand the complainant alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to deliver him a new mobile phone of same model and has also sought compensation.
3. The OP-1 has been contesting the case and filed written statement. In written statement, OP-1 submitted that OP-1 was always ready to provide after sales service to the complainant and still ready to provide the same subject to the terms of the warrantee. The complainant has not disclosed the specific defects in the handset. OP-1 further submitted that as per job sheet the mobile handset was out of warrantee and an estimate of Rs.450/- was given to the
CC No. 1492/2015 Page2 of 4
complainant and the complainant later on refused to pay the said amount and the complainant has concealed the material facts and the complaint has been filed with a malaise motive to harass to OP-1 to submit to unreasonable and mischievous design of the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder to written statement of OP-1 and denied the contentions of OP-1.
5. It is not out to place mention here that on record is a compromise which is signed by the complainant and counsel for OP-1 but on 09.09.2017, the complainant appeared and stated that counsel for OP-1 took his signatures on the compromise under misrepresentation and the complainant is not ready to accept the amount of Rs.2,000/- as mentioned in the compromise.
6. However, subsequently the complainant failed to file his affidavit in evidence despite giving opportunities and the complainant also did not turn up to attend the further hearing of the case. Accordingly, right of the complainant to file his affidavit in evidence has been closed.
7. Thus, we are of opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case by way of any cogent evidence and there is no merits in the complaint. The complaint is accordingly dismissed.
CC No. 1492/2015 Page3 of 4
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of The Consumer Protection Regulations-2005. Therefore, file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 4thday of May, 2018.
BARIQ AHMAD USHA KHANNA M.K.GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MENBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 1492/2015 Page 4 of 4
