Haryana

Panchkula

CC/150/2015

KAMAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MICROMAX MOBILE. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

06 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	150 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	12.08.2015
Date of Decision	:	06.11.2015

                                                                                          

Kamal c/o Sh.Jethuram # 1068, B-1 Near Purana Kuaan, Post Office Pinjor, Tehsil Kalka District Panchkula (134102).

                                                                                                ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Micromax House 90-B Sector 18, Gurgaon, Pink Code 122015.

2.       M/s Om Mobile Care, Ground Floor, Nirmal Complex, Purkhas Road, Sonipat, Haryana Pind Code 131001.

3.       M/s Abacus System, SC 824, NAC, Mani Majra, Above Indian Bank, Chandigarh Pin Code 160101.

                                                                                 …. Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

                            

For the Parties:     Complainant in person.

Ops are ex-parte.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. In brief, the complainant had purchased a mobile of Micromax Company through online vide invoice No.KA-BLR6-144105041-515182 dated 11.12.2014 The complainant had been using the mobile in question but thereafter it started giving problem as touch screen was not working properly due to manufacturing defect.  The complainant approached the OPs No.2 & 3 (authorized centers) for rectifying the problem whereby the Ops No.2 & 3 kept the mobile with them by issuing job cards. Thereafter the complainant kept on visiting and requesting the Ops No.2 & 3 for repairing the set but they lingered on the matter by saying that it will take time as there is manufacturing defect in the same. The complainant has even requested the Ops No.2 & 3 either to replace the set or to refund the cost thereof in case the mobile is unrepairable but the Ops did not pay any heed.  The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to  deficiency in service on their part. In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavit and documents Annexure CA, Annexure C1 to Annexure C3.
2. Notices were issued to OPs No.1 to 3 through registered post and the same have not been received served or unserved. It is deemed to be served and the Ops No.1 to 3 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17.09.2015.
3. We have heard the complainant in person and have also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.
4. The first and foremost question is to be decided by us whether the complainant falls within the definition of Consumer or Not?

Section 2(1)(d)of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 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 within the approval of such person but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires or avails of any services 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 beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services  for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose”.

 

Though in the present case the OPs have not appeared before this Forum and also not joined the proceedings but it does not give any right to the complainant to take the benefit of this as it is well settled law that the complainant is to stand on its own legs without taking the benefit of other party. The complainant has not placed any document on the case file to show that he had ever purchased the mobile set in question because Annexure C1 i.e. invoice number has shown billing address of one Khem Chand Nimesh # 292, Street No.9, Shanti Nagar, Manimajra Town, Chandigarh and the complainant has even not placed on case file affidavit of said Khem Chand Nimesh to show that he had purchased the hand set for complainant. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops and the complaint deserves dismissal.

5. Keeping in view the discussion, we dismiss the present compliant with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

06.11.2015     S.P.ATTRI          ANITA KAPOOR          DHARAM PAL

                       MEMBER           MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                 

                                                                   DHARAM PAL

                                                                    PRESIDENT