Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/540

PAWAN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

MICORMAX CARE - Opp.Party(s)

28 Oct 2015

ORDER

 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                     Date of institution       : 10.8.15

 

Case. No.DF-III/ 540 /2015/                                                                          Date of order        : 4.7.2016

In the matter of :-

Mr. Pawan Kumar

RZ-178, Durga Vihar, Phase-I,

Gali No.1, Najafgarh,

New Delhi-110043.                                                                       Complainant

Vs.

Micromax Care,

Shop No. G-113, First Floor,

Metro Pillar No. 673, Uttam Nagar,

New Delhi-110059.                                                                       Opposite Party-1

 

Micromax Information Ltd

90-B, Sector-18, Gurgaon,

Haryana-122015.                                                                          Opposite Party-2

 

 (R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT)

O R D E R     

 

            The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased one mobile handset make Micromax AD-4500 Bolt with IMEI No.911388251121262/911388251621766 vide invoice No.2466 dated 14.3.15 from Sai Kripa Sales, 1665, Thane Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi for sale consideration of Rs. 4450/-.  The mobile handset developed some fault within one month from the date of purchase.   The complainant on 13.4.15 visited the opposite party-1 for repairs.   The opposite party-2 on same date updated the software.    But even after software update the mobile handset was not working properly.  Therefore, on 15.4.15    the complainant deposited

-2-

the mobile handset with opposite party-1 for repair vide job sheet No. 30716041516092266.  The opposite party-1 informed the complainant that the mobile  handset  was  sent  to  the  company  for replacement on 18.4.15.   The opposite party-1 issued another job sheet No. 30716041516157183 and informed him to collect the same after 2-3 weeks.     The complainant on 4-5-15 collected the repaired handset.    But  the mobile handset again developed fault after few days.  The complainant again on 13.5.15 deposited the mobile handset with opposite party-1 vide job sheet No. 30716051516599133.    The opposite party-1 assured the complainant that the said mobile handset  will be sent to the company for replacement and he may collect the same after 2-3 weeks.     Again on 11.6.15, the complainant visited opposite party-1 to enquire about the status of his mobile handset.  But opposite party-1 did not give the replaced handset.   On 18.6.15, opposite party-1 telephonically informed the complainant to collect the mobile handset.  The complainant refused to take the mobile handset and insisted  to replace the same.  The complainant also mailed letter date 26.6.15 to opposite party-1.    The complainant also send a reminder letter dated 15.7.15 to opposite party-2 and the same was handed over to the security guard at their office.    Hence, the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs.4450/- cost of mobile handset with interest.

 

            Notice of the complaint was sent to opposite parties.  But none appeared on their behalf despite proper service.  Therefore, opposite parties 1 & 2 were proceed ex-parte vide order dated 23.12.15.

 

-3-

            When the complainant was asked to lead ex-parte evidence,  he filed affidavit dated 21.3.16, job sheets dated 13.5.15  and 15.4.15, invoice No. 2466 dated 14.3.15 and copy of reminder.   He narrated the facts of complaint once again in the affidavit dated 21.3.16.    He deposed that the handset was within warranty.  But due to some fault the same was deposited with opposite party-1 vide job sheets dated 13.5.15  and 15.4.15.     Which also shows that the handset was within warranty.   From the perusal of invoice dated 14.3.15          and  job  sheets  dated   13.5.15  and   15.4.15,  it reveals that the complainant purchased one mobile handset make Micromax AD-4500 Bolt with IMEI No.911388251121262/911388251621766 vide invoice No. 2466 dated 14.3.15 from Sai Kripa Sales, 1665, Thane Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi for sale consideration of Rs. 4450/-.  The handset was given by the complainant on 13.5.15 for repairs to opposite party-1 within warranty.    

 

            We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the complaint, affidavit and documents submitted by the complainant. 

 

            The documents  shows that the complainant purchased one mobile handset from Sai Kripa Sales, 1665, Thane Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi for sale consideration of Rs. 4450/-.    The handset developed fault and was given for repairs to the opposite party-1.  The mobile handset  has been repaired by the opposite parties and same  was duly informed to the complainant through SMS.   But the complainant refused to take the repaired mobile handset and insisted for replacement.   The contents of SMS clearly shows that the mobile  handset  has   been  repaired.        But   the   complainant  himself  did

-4-

not receive /collect the mobile handset and return the mobile handset given by opposite party-1 for use.   There is no other document to show and prove that the opposite party promised to replace the mobile handset.    Hence, the complainant failed to prove that opposite parties are liable to replace mobile handset.     Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party-1 & 2.  

 

            Hence, the complaint fails and is hereby dismissed.

 

Order pronounced on   : 4.7.2016

 

 

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.

 

 

 

• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                               (URMILA GUPTA)                   ( R.S.  BAGRI )

  MEMBER                                            MEMBER                               PRESIDENT