Delhi

StateCommission

FA/777/2013

BUNIYAD ALI - Complainant(s)

Versus

MICROMAX CHEEK POINT - Opp.Party(s)

27 Apr 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION

(Constituted under section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 27.04.2016

 

First Appeal-777/2013

 

 

        In the Matter of:

                                                                     

                Sh. Buniyad Ali

          S/o Sh. Allah Dia,

          R/o 246/51, Gali No-3,

          Indira Colony, Opp. Vardan Apartment,

          Mandawali, Delhi-110092

……Appellant     Versus   M/s Micromax Check Point, Avon Office Furniture, B-36, 1st Floor, Gurunanakpura, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 Through Its Manager                                                                              …….Respondent

CORAM

  Justice Veena Birbal, President

  Salma Noor, Member

 

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Salma Noor, Member

1.             This is an appeal filed against order dated 31.05.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East) in complaint case No. 122/2012 whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.

2.             Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. District Forum the appellant/complainant has filed this appeal before this Commission. Along with appeal there is an application for condonation of delay. According to the appellant/complainant there is a delay of 30 days in filing this appeal.

3.             Notice was issued to the respondent/OP on various dates. Notice was delivered to respondent/OP as per track report filed on 29.02.2016 as such respondent was taken to be served. Despite service none appeared for respondent/OP on aforesaid date. The adverse orders against respondent/OP were deferred on the said date and the matter was adjourned for today i.e. 27.04.2016. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent/OP even today.

4.             We have heard the appellant/complainant on the application for condonation of delay. There is a delay of 30 days in filing the present appeal.

5.             We have gone through the application and heard the arguments of the appellant/complainant on the application. It is stated by the appellant/complainant that he is 57 years old and an illiterate person. He is as sugar patient and is unable to understand the English language. According to him he had received copy of the impugned order dated 21.05.2013 on 07.06.2013. Thereafter, he contacted his counsel and then he came to know that his complaint was dismissed and therefore there is a delay of 30 days in filing this appeal.

6.             In support of his version appellant/complainant has filed his own affidavit. There is no reason to disbelieve the submissions. Hence, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.

7.             Now on merits, brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant purchased a mobile phone of Rs. 900/- with one year warranty. It is alleged by the appellant/complainant that on 21.08.2011 his phone became defective and it was taken to respondent/OP for repairs. But neither the defect of the phone was removed nor the respondent/OP replaced the phone. The version of the appellant/complainant is that he took the phone on 2-3 occasions to respondent/OP for repairs but instead of giving assurance the phone could not be set right by the respondent/OP which caused undue harassment to the appellant/complainant.

8.             Harassed appellant/complainant had filed the complaint before the Ld. District Forum with a prayer to replace the defective mobile phone with a new mobile along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/-, 30,000/- towards loss of earning and 11,000/- towards costs of litigation. The District Forum issued notice to the OP but no one appeared on behalf of the respondent/OP before the Ld. District Forum therefore respondent/OP was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 14.12.2013.

9.             Appellant/Complainant filed ex-parte evidence. After considering the complaint and the evidence filed by the appellant/complainant the Ld. District Forum had passed the following orders:

                        “Complainant claims that the product carried one year warranty but its terms and conditions, if any, are not on record. Complainant has furnished copies of job sheets dated 17.02.2011 and 18.09.2011 issued by OP for repairs of the set. There is no evidence that complainant has ever paid any service charges to OP for the repair nor any evidence that OP had extended any warranty for the product in question.

                        In the absence of any supporting evidences, we are unable to fasten any liability on OP and the complaint is dismissed”.

10.            We find no ambiguity in the aforesaid order of the Ld. District Forum because even during the course of hearing before us in this Commission the appellant/complainant has failed to provide any evidence regarding paying any service charges to the respondent/OP for the repair. Neither any extended warranty of the mobile phone is produced. Neither the appellant/complainant has filed copy of the complaint before the Ld. District Forum nor filed any documents in support of his contentions. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. District Forum. Hence, the appeal of the appellant/complainant is dismissed.

                A copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of costs as per rules.

                File be consigned to record room.

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member