Haryana

Jind

CC/15/97

Virender Redhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax House - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Vinod Bansal

14 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND. 
                                           Complaint No. 107 of 2015
   Date of Institution: 12.8.2015
   Date of final order: 17.6.2016

Virender Redhu s/o Sh. Ramphal Redhu r/o house No.429/12 Chauri Gali Krishna colony, Jind.
                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
Micromax house 90 B sector 18, Gurgaon.
Mobile store Limited shop No.117 first floor, little World Mall Kharghar, Navi Mumbai-901 410210.
M/s Sonu Mobile shop, authorized dealer/service centre, shop No.9 (Basement) near Bharat Cinema, Batra Shopping Centre, Jhanj Gate, Jind. 
                                                          …..Opposite parties.
                          Complaint under section 12 of
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.
    Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.    

Present:  Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for complainant.
          Opposite parties already ex-parte. 
         
ORDER:

             The brief facts in the complaint are that complainant’s friend Chander Shekher Modi had purchased  on line a Micromax A 350 Convas Knight white mobile set for a sum of Rs.17,894/- vide invoice No.2371/22881 dated 9.10.2014 and was gifted  by Chander Shekher Modi to the  complainant. The complainant using the above said mobile set. As per warranty card the mobile had one year 
            Virender Redhu Vs. Micromax etc.
                         ...2…
manufacturing warranty  from the date of purchase. It is stated that on 2.2.2015 the above said mobile set stopped charging and mobile could not charge. Due to this reason, the complainant deposited the mobile set with the opposite party No.3 for removing the defects of mobile. The complainant visited the opposite party No.3 several times for removing the defects of the mobile set but the opposite party No.3 did not remove the same. Thereafter, the complainant sent so many complaints to opposite parties through E-mails and on toll free number 1860 in this regard. In response of those complaints, the opposite parties have given an used old and repaired Micromax Knight 350 mobile set but the said set  stopped working on the next day itself. The complainant returned the said old defective mobile set to opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.3 tried to hand over another used repaired set of 2 GHz Processor and with internal memory of 16 GB but the complainant refused to take the same being of lower version and lover configuration.  Till today, the mobile of the complainant is  in the custody of opposite parties. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted and opposite parties be directed to replace the mobile set with new one or to pay the cost of mobile i.e. Rs.17,894/- along with interest @ 24% p.a., a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony  as well as to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant. 
2.    Notice issued to opposite parties received back served but none has come present on behalf of opposite parties. Hence, opposite 
            Virender Redhu Vs. Micromax etc.
                         ...3…
parties were proceeded against ex-parte vide order of this Forum dated 24.9.2015 and 10.11.2015 respectively. 
3.    In ex-parte evidence, the complainant has produced his own affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of retail invoice Ex. C-2, copies of job sheet Ex. C-3 and Ex. C-4, copy of document Ex. C-5, copies of E-mails Ex. C-6 to Ex. C-23, copy of courier receipt Ex. C-24 and closed the evidence. 
4.    We have heard Ld. counsel for complainant and also perused the record placed on file.  It is observed that the complainant had not purchased the mobile set in question from the opposite parties. As per Ex. C-2 the mobile in question was purchased by Chander Shekher Modi r/o Ghar Navi Mumbai. The counsel for complainant argued that the mobile in question was gifted to the complainant by Chander Shekher Modi and he also relied upon the definition of Consumer under Section 2 ( d) ( i )  of Consumer Protection Act, which reads as under:- consumer means any person who
“buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose”.

            Virender Redhu Vs. Micromax etc.
                         ...4…
5.       We have gone through the definition of Consumer, it is clear that the goods can be used by any person with the consent of the original purchaser. There is no such document on the file that the purchaser namely Chander Shekher Modi has given any consent to the complainant by way of any affidavit or any consent letter. In view of the definition, the complainant can become the user of the goods with the consent of the original purchaser. Besides this complainant has produced the documents i.e. e-males Ex. C-6 to Ex. C-23 in which he admitted that he has bought the mobile in question but as per Ex. C-2 Chander Shekher Modi has purchased the mobile in question through on line. Hence, we are of the  firm view that complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and hence the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties under the rule. File be consigned to the record-room.
Announced on: 17.6.2016

                                President,
 Member                 Member               District Consumer Disputes                                     Redressal Forum, Jind

 

 

 

                     Virender Redhu Vs. Micromax etc.
                         
Present:  Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for complainant.
          Opposite parties already ex-parte. 
         

              Arguments heard. To come up on 17.6.2016 for orders. 
                                    President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  14.6.2016

Present:  Sh. Vinod Bansal Adv. for complainant.
          Opposite parties already ex-parte. 
         
         Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.  
                                          President,
        Member         Member              DCDRF, Jind
                                  17.6.2016