Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/827/2014

Ravi Shetti - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax Service Centre - Opp.Party(s)

29 Feb 2016

ORDER

(Order dictated by Shri. B.V.Gudli, President)

: ORDER :

          The complainant has filed complaint against Opponent U/s. 12 of C.P. Act alleging deficiency in service for non return of Micromax mobile handset.

          2) After service of notice opponent No.1 failed to appear before the forum. Hence Opponent No.1 placed ex-parte. Opponent No.2 has appeared through his counsel and has filed his written version has denied the deficiency in service on the part of the opponent etc.,

          3) In support of the claim of the complainant, complainant has not filed affidavit and opponent No.2 has filed his affidavit and produced some documents by the complainant.

          4) We have heard the arguments and perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opponents and entitled to the reliefs sought?

          6) Our finding on the point is partly in Negative, for the following reasons.

:: REASONS ::

          7) On perusal contents of the complaint, the allegations of the complainant is that he brought Micromax mobile from Anand, Pune. The said mobile started giving some problems so took it to customer care. Said customer care centre said that it will repair 10 days but they took more than 50 days he has not received cell phone from customer Care. Said mobile is under warranty and started giving software problems. He gave said Micromax mobile on 29/10/2014 and he has not received said mobile till today. He further alleged that he is a student and needed to use internet, whats app etc and exchange notes from his friends. During his final exams he had travel to college always to get notes, question papers, assignments, project information which could be easily get through internet whats app. For everything he had go to cyber café because Micromax didn’s fulfill its promise. He use internet in mobile only for notes and information purpose. Due to non return of mobile hand phone he could not find good companies for his 4^th semester project. He spoke to company representative on phone. They say they need 25 more days to repair the phone. He did not understand what they did for 50 days. When asked what they did 50 days they say we are sorry, it our mistake due to non return of Micromax. He suffered physical and mental agony. Hence prays for compensation of Rs.30,000/-. Hence complainant constrained to file this complaint against opponents.

          8) On perusal of objection and affidavit of opponent No.2 that he admits the complainant has purchased the said Micromax mobile at Pune. However this forum has no jurisdiction to decide the case. The complainant is not entitle any compensation. Hence prays for dismissal the complaint.

9) On perusal contents of the complaint filed by the complainant he sought for compensation against opponents. However the complainant has not produced evidence affidavit before the forum. The contents of the complaint is not supported by the evidence of the complainant. The complainant failed to prove the contents of the complaint through cogent evidence without producing evidence of the complainant forum cannot allow the complaint of the complainant.

10) Opponent has taken another contention that this forum has no jurisdiction to decide the case of the complainant. On perusal objection and affidavit of Opponent No.2, the complainant has purchased Micromax mobile at Pune. As per section 11 of Consumer Protection Act of 1986-

Jurisdiction of the District Forum-

1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaint where the value of the goods or services and compensation if any claimed does not exceed Rs.20,00,000/-.

2) The complainant shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction.

(a) A opposite party or each of the opposite parties where there are more than one, at the time of institution of complaint, actually and voluntarily or carries on business……

         

11) On perusal documents produced by the complainant. Complainant had purchased Micromax mobile from the opponent party who is carrying his business at Pune. This forum has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint of the complainant. The complainant failed to prove that this forum has got jurisdiction to try complaint. The complainant failed to prove through cogent evidence. The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable.  Hence we pass the following order;

: ORDER :

The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Order dictated, corrected & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 26^th day of February 2016)

          Member                    Member                    President

gm*