View 2294 Cases Against Micromax
NEERAJ KAUSHIK filed a consumer case on 27 Jun 2016 against MANAGER MICROMAX SERVICE CENTER in the Gurgaon Consumer Court. The case no is CC/28/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 08 Jul 2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,GURGAON-122001
Consumer Complaint No: 28 of 2016 Date of Institution: 12.01.2016 Date of Decision: 27.06.2016
Neeraj Kaushik s/o Shri Gian Chand Office of District Information and Public Relations Officer, 6th Floor, Mini Secretariat, Gurgaon.
……Complainant.
Versus
Manager Micromax Service Centre (M/s Best Tech Services), SCO A-32 1st Floor, Jail Land HUDA Market, near Sohna Chowk, Gurgaon.
The Manager, Head Office, Micromax House, 697, Udyog Vihar, Phase-5, Gurgaon.
Tarash Overseas Pvt. Ltd, Plot No.5, Sector 27, near SSR Corporate Tower, Faridabad, Haryana-121003.
..Opposite parties
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SHRI SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER
SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.
Present: Shri Neeraj Kaushik, complainant in person
OP-1 to OP-3 exparte.
ORDER SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he has purchased mobile phone Micromax Canvas DUET-II online through OP-3 for a sum of Rs.7,499/- vide Retail Invoice No. TARA/15-16/85178 dated 22.05.2015. However, after few days of its purchase the handset became defective and it was taken to the service centre of the manufacturer i.e. OP-1 on 30.06.2015 with the following complaint “
Drop Call,
CDMA Poor Reception/Bad receiving
Display Touch Screen not working
Battery No Charging
The OP-1 prepared Job Sheet No.50070-0615-176269A7 dated 30.06.2015 and told the complainant to come back after 15 days to receive the handset after repair. He received the handset on 21.07.2015 but when he checked the handset at the service of the OP-1 then he noticed that the problem was the same. He again deposited the handset vide Job Sheet No.50070-0715-18068007 dated 21.07.2015 showing the problem of Drop Calls. He again visited the service centre but the problem was the same. He requested the opposite parties to replace the handset with new one but of no use and thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant prayed that the opposite parties be directed to refund the price of the handset i.e. Rs.7,499/- with interest along with compensation of Rs.20,000/-.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. However, opposite parties failed to turn up before this Forum and thus, were proceeded exparte vide order dated 21.03.2016.
3 The complainant in his exparte evidence has filed his affidavit and retail invoice dated 22.05.2015 for Rs.7,499/- (Ex.P-1), Job Card dated 21.07.2015 (Ex.P-2)and dated 30.06.2015 (Ex.P-3).
4 We have heard the complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.
5 Therefore, after going through the case facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it emerges that the complainant has purchased a mobile phone Micromax Canvas DUET II for a sum of Rs.7,499/- on 22.05.2015 vide retail Invoice No. TARA/15-16/85178 issued by OP-3. However, after few days of its purchase the handset became defective and was deposited with OP-1 i.e. Service Centre vide Job Sheet No.50070-0615-176269A7 dated 30.06.2015 (Ex.P-3). He collected the handset on 21.07.2015 but when he checked the same at the service centre the problem was still there and he again deposited the handset with OP-1 vide Job Sheet No.50070-0715-18068007 dated 21.07.2015. He visited on 25.08.2015 but the defect was not removed by the OPs. He requested the opposite parties to repair/replace the handset but of no use which tantamounts to deficiency in service. The evidence produced by the complainant goes unrebutted as the OPs failed to appear before this Forum to rebut the claim of the complainant and thus, there was no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant.
5 Therefore, we direct the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to repair the handset and if it is not repairable then to replace the same with same model or upgraded model on deposit of old handset by the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to compensation for harassment and mental agony as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.3,000/-.The OP-1 & 2 shall make the compliance of the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
27.06.2016 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.