DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.171 of 16-06-2017

Decided on 15-02-2018

Kusum W/o Deepak Kurmi, B-85, Type V, Thermal Colony, GNDTP, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Micromax India C/o Micromax House 90B, Sector-18, Gurgaon-122015.

2.Unitech Mobile Service Center Main GT Road Beside Ravi Enterprises Opp. Jagmal Neuro Center Near Old Bus Stand, Bathinda-151005.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur Member

Present:-

For the complainant: Sh.Deepak Kurmi, A.R.

For opposite party No.1: None.

Opposite party No.2: Deleted.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Kusum (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Micromax India and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that opposite party No.1 is engaged in the business of manufacturing and importing mobile handsets of Micromax company from other countries and selling the same on large scale in India. Opposite party No.2 is working as service center of Micromax mobile handsets at Bathinda.

3. It is alleged that the complainant purchased one Micromax Canvas Fire 4G (Q412) mobile handset from Kansal Mobile Store, Bathinda for a sum of Rs.7500/- through HDFC bank credit card on 18.11.2015 with one year warranty. She purchased the mobile handset with configuration as under.

   Processor: 1 GHZ Quad Core, memory- 8 GB ROM;

   1GB RAM, Screen 11.93 CM (4.7) HD IPS (1280 X720) with 312ppi;

   10S-Android lollipop, Video-HD (720p Recording and playback.

4. It is further alleged that the complainant received the mobile handset in the box having total 3.38 GB ROM with 2.12 GB space available for end-user instead of 8GB ROM, which was claimed/displayed on the box by the company. Complainant opted for higher ROM with expected available storage space of approx. 5GB to 5.5 GB after deducting memory space acquired/used by operating system/lollipop.

5. It is also alleged that the complainant conveyed the issues to the respective service centers, but they expressed their helplessness in this concern after retaining the mobile handset in their custody for more than three week twice on the pretext of manufacturing defect. The complainant raised the issue with Micromax vide communications on 25.7.2016, 27.1.2017, 7.2.2017, e-mails dated 23.2.2017, 27.2.2017, 12.4.2017 and telephone discussion dated 14.2.2017. She many times visited the service center as per directions received from respective customer care as well as service center of Micromax, but the service centre expressed its helplessness and refused to receive the mobile handset. The complainant also filed the complaint dated 24.4.2017 with National Consumer Helpline run by Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution and Company, who has disposed the case on 27.4.2017 by merely mentioning the configuration of the mobile handset. Opposite party has not repaired/rectified the mobile handset.

   On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. She has prayed for refund the price of the mobile handset with interest @18% per annum and compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

6. In view of statement suffered by A.R. for complainant, name of opposite party No.2 was deleted from the array of opposite parties.

7. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared through its counsel, but it failed to file written version within the statutory period. As such, the matter was posted for evidence of complainant.

8. Parties were asked to produce evidence.

9. In support of her claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit dated 16.6.2017, (Ex.C1); photocopy of retail invoice, (Ex.C2); photocopies of e-mails, (Ex.C3, Ex.C8 and Ex.C9); photocopy of credit card statement, (Ex.C4); photocopies of letters, (Ex.C5 and Ex.C6); photocopy of job sheet, (Ex.C7); photocopy of screen shoot regarding storage, (Ex.C10); photocopy of complaint history, (Ex.C11); print containing details, (Ex.C12); photocopy of status, (Ex.C13) and closed the evidence.

10. Opposite party No.1 failed to produce evidence despite repeated requests. Therefore, evidence of opposite party No.1 was closed by order vide order dated 2.2.2017 and matter was posted for arguments.

11. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the file carefully.

12. A.R of complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint and detailed above. It is also pointed out by A.R of complainant that the bill, (Ex.C2) proves that the complainant purchased the mobile handset. He has also placed on record copies of e-mails, (Ex.C5 and Ex.C6) whereby opposite party No.1 was intimated that the mobile handset in question is containing RAM less than claimed. The complainant has also placed on record job sheet, (Ex.C7) to prove that the defect was reported to opposite party No.1. He has also placed on record copy of other complaints, (Ex.C8 and Ex.C9), which show the complainant was agitating the matter continuously with the concerned authority. Ex.C10, proves that the mobile handset in question contained RAM Total Space 3.3.8 GB only against claimed RAM 8 GB. The matter was also raised before National Consumer Helpline run by Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution and Company vide Ex.C13. Opposite party No.1 has not dare to contest the complaint. Therefore, adverse inference is to be drawn against opposite party No.1. The complaint be accepted in terms of reliefs as claimed for.

13. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

14. The averments of the complainant are to be examined in the light of evidence produced on record. The complainant has pleaded that she has purchased the mobile handset Micromax Canvas Fire 4G (Q412) from Kansal Mobile Store, Bathinda. Of-course, she has placed on record bill, (Ex.C2), but it is not legible to prove that the complainant has purchased the mobile handset as revealed in the complaint.

15. The first grouse of the complainant is that as per advertisement, RAM was of 8 GB. The main reliance of the complainant to prove this fact is Ex.C12. Of-course, this document reveals the configuration of Micromax Canvas Fire 4G Plus Q412, but as per this document, this mobile handset was released in the month of December 2015. Therefore, this document will not prove the configuration of the mobile handset purchased by the complainant as she has purchased the mobile handset launched before the month of December 2015.

16. Complainant has also pleaded that she has raised this issue to respective service centres. She has produced job sheet dated 21.7.2016, (Ex.C7). As per this document, the problem reported was application crashes. This matter was not raised before the service centre.

17. As the main complaint of the complainant is regarding configuration, but there is no document to prove that opposite party No.1 promised configuration batter than provided in the mobile handset. The complainant has purchased the mobile handset on 18.11.2015. There is nothing to show that any manufacturing defect was reported to the manufacturer within the warranty period of one year.

18. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.

19. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

20. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. As there is shortage of postal stamps, parties can also collect the copy of order personally/through counsel against receipt. File be consigned to the record room.

    Announced:-

    15-02-2018

    (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member