CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/137/16

          Date of Institution:-   21.04.2016

          Order Reserved on:- 05.01.2024

                       Date of Decision:-     18.03.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Rakesh Kumar,

S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand

R/o H. No.28, Block No.5,

Khichri Pur, Delhi - 110092

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

Micromax Informatics Ltd.

Plot No.21/14, Block-A,

Naraina Industrial Area,

Phase-II, Delhi - 110028

  .…..Opposite Party

   ORDER

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations that he has booked mobile handset/phone of Micromax Canvas Spark Q380-8GB in July 2015 through Snapdeal and got its delivery on 30.07.2015. He has paid a sum of Rs.5099/- including shipping charges and receipt dated 27.07.2015 was received. On 12.10.2015, the mobile phone did not restart and immediately contacted official of OP at mobile care, Gurunanak Pura, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi (authorised service centre). He collected electronic receipt no.D-231 for the visit. The official at service centre told that board of the mobile will be changed for which he has to pay a sum of Rs.3,540/-. The mobile phone was under warranty so the question of payment does not arise. A legal notice dated 23.10.2015 was issued to the complainant. On 05.11.2015, Ms. Gurvinder, official of OP called him and conversation with her was recorded in CD. The conduct of OP in not replacing the board shows unfair trade practices. Hence, this complaint.

2. The OP-1 has filed a reply to the effect that complainant has not disclosed the specific defect in the handset. The complainant has not filed any document that he went for repairs to authorised service centre. No specific date of visit to service centre is disclosed. The job card is not placed on record. The filing of token does not mean that he has visited the service centre or that official at service centre has demanded money. The cause of defect is not disclosed by the complainant. The OP has not denied to provide the service under warranty. The complainant has not filed any document to show any major defect in the handset. There is misuse of mobile phone by the complainant. The allegations of the complainant are denied.

3. The complainant has filed the replication wherein he has denied the averments of written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.

4. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.

5. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of the complainant and placed reliance on the documents Ex.CW-1/1 to CW-1/10.

6. The OP-1 has filed the affidavit of Sh. Mohd. Asad Shakeel in evidence wherein it is stated that contents of reply be treated as a part of this affidavit.

7. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant as no one turned up on behalf of OP to address the arguments despite giving sufficient time even after fixing the case for orders on 05.01.2024.

8. It is clear from the entire material on record that purchase of mobile phone by the complainant is nowhere disputed by the OP.

9. The plea of the complainant is that the mobile phone did not start as a result on 12.10.2015 he visited the authorised service centre of the OP where official told that board will be changed against charges even though the mobile phone was under warranty.

10. The document Annexure-P2 annexed with the complaint (Exhibit is not put on the document) shows that on 12.10.2015 a token no.D-231 has been issued.

11. This document does not show that this token number has been issued from Gurunanak Pura, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. There is nothing on record to suggest that complainant has visited the said service centre as alleged.

12. The complainant has not placed on record anything to show that there was a particular defect in the mobile phone. There is no job card on record which shows a particular defect.

13. The complainant has issued a legal notice Annexure-P3 dated 23.10.2015 to the OP and thereafter one Ms. Gurvinder has allegedly called the complainant and conversation was duly recorded by the complainant, the transcript of the same along with CD is placed on record. The perusal of the transcript shows that complainant has answered to the official of the OP that official at service centre was demanding money for the repairs though the phone was under warranty. The complainant told that the board will be changed to which the official of the reply that “mother board change hona hai”. The official of OP lastly replied that “aapko handset submit karwana padega uske baad hi hum kuch kar payenge and handset submit nahi karayenge to hum kuch bhi aage accept nahi kar sakte hai out of warranty repair hai company to cost bear nahi karegi naa uska sir”.

14. The transcript shows that complainant has to deposit the handset for the repair and to see whether the defect is under warranty.

15. The complainant did not deposit the phone so there is nothing on the record that there was a particular problem in the handset which needs repair under warranty.

16. The OP can be held liable for deficiency in service only if complainant had deposited the phone with service centre and service centre refused to repair the same despite the fact that defects is under warranty. Such evidence is missing.

17. The said discussion shows that complainant has failed to bring evidence to show that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

18. In view of our aforesaid discussion, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order as to the cost.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 18.03.2024.