Delhi

North East

CC/12/2017

PRADEEP KR. JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

MICROMAX MOBILE CARE - Opp.Party(s)

14 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 12/17

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain C-69, Gali No. 8, Jyoti Colony Shahdara, Delhi 110093		Complainant
		Versus
		Micromax Mobile Care B-36, Guru Nanak Pura, Opposite V3S Mall Near Maharaja Banquet Hall, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		18.01.2017
			JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :		14.11.2018
			DATE OF DECISION      :		14.11.2018

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Present complaint has been filed by complainant against OP alleging deficiency in service. The facts of the complaint are that the complainant on 02.04.2015 had purchased a Mobile Phone of Micromax (Model A106) amounting to Rs. 6,000/- from M/s. Spice Hot Spot, Rohtas Nagar, Delhi. After finding some problems regarding display and PCB in the said mobile phone, complainant approached OP service centre for repairing the same which took the mobile phone and provided jobsheet no. 30666101526202999 to complainant and charged Rs. 3,800/- from the complainant for repairing the mobile phone on 29.10.2016. The OP returned the same on 07.11.216. However, after using the mobile phone it had been found that the problem therein still existed and it appeared that the OP returned the mobile phone without properly repairing / checking. On 08.11.2016 & 09.11.2016 complainant again visited OP regarding his grievance but OP did not resolve the problem in the mobile phone even though it deposited the phone again with itself on 09.11.2016 against job sheet no. 030666111626555681 but never returned the mobile to complainant till date for which the complainant was deprived access to WhatsApp for his sons’s JEE coaching. Therefore, vide the present complaint the complainant has alleged deficiency in service against the OP and prayed to direct OP to refund Rs. 8,000/- of the said mobile phone. The complainant had attached a copy of job sheet vide no. 30666111626353681 dated 09.11.2016 mentioned problem “4911 display touch screen not working”, Job sheet vide no. 30666101526202999 dated 29.10.2016 mentioned problem “4101 power does not switch on”, retail invoice dated 02.04.2015 amounting to Rs. 6,000/- for purchased mobile phone, an email dated 26.12.2016 regarding complaint to M/s. Micromax Ltd.
2. Notice to OP issued on 18.01.2017 was served on 30.01.2017 but due to non appearance of OP, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.03.2017
3. Complainant filed his Ex-parte evidence and written arguments on 16.08.2018 wherein he reiterated the grievance.
4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant and have also gone through the evidence submitted by complainant in support of his contention.
5. We are of the view that in the absence of any rebuttal by the OP the complainant has succeeded in establishing the case of deficiency in service on the part of OP being failed to return the mobile phone to the complainant after repairing it and despite receiving charges for the same. Hence, we hold OP guilty of deficiency in service and direct OP to refund the amount of Rs. 3,800/- against repairing charges to complainant. We direct the OP to pay Rs. 2000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony to the complainant.
6. Let the order be complied with by OP within 30 days of receipt of copy of the orders.
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.

     8.  File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on 14.11.2018)          

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member