Delhi

East Delhi

CC/29/2014

ABHISHEK - Complainant(s)

Versus

MICROMAX - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jan 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

               CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CASE NO-29/14
 

Mr. Abhishek Kumar,

S/o Sh. Chandrakant Srivastava

R/o D-26, Gali No.1,

East Vinod Nagar, Delhi-110091.

 

Complainant

Vs

1. SP Solution  Point

Through its Porprietor

C-9/213, Guru Nanak Pura,

Opp. Ansal Building, Near V3S Mall,

Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi.

 

2. M/S Micromax House

Through Its Director

90-B, Sector-18, Gurgaon,

•  

Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                   DATE OF ADMISSION-21/01/2014

                                                                                      DATE OF ORDER       - 21/07/2015

Sh. SUBHASH GUPTA (MEMBER)

 

The complainant who is Software Engineer has purchased the mobile phone Micromax A-110 (B) /SERMOBO223/ 911239253191318, 911239253242319, by online order dated 28/12/2012. It is alleged in the complaint that after some time there is some problem in the touch screen and the same was given for repairing. It is also alleged that the respondent has stolen lens cover. Despite number of visits service center refused to rectify the problem and also refused to refund the amount. The service centre receipt dated 21/12/2013 has also been filed along with complaint copy. The complainant has also alleged that his handset has been lost. Notice to OP-1 i.e. SP Solution Point and OP-2 M/S Micromax House. OP-2 i.e. Micromax House has filed their written statement. It has been pleaded that the complainant purchased the handset on 28/12/2012 and first time approached the authorized service centre on 21/12/2013 that is only six days before the warranty period was to be expired. It has been pleaded that the service centre called up the complainant several times to collect the hand set but he never returned up to collect the same. It has also been stated that the handset is ready in the service center and the complainant can collect the same after producing the necessary documents. OP.2 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint which has been frivolous and moved for the purpose to extract money from him.

     Both the parties filed their evidence by way of affidavit.

     We have gone through the pleadings of the parties as well as evidence placed on record. The complainant has placed Ex. CW-1/A which is a cash memo showing purchase of the mobile phone, Ex-CW-1/B is copy of the Job Sheet dated 21/12/2013 vide according to which the handset was deposited in the authorized service centre, Ex.CW-1/C a copy of the E.mail dated 03/01/2014 to the service centre regarding the complaint to loss the phone by the service centre. On the same page there is a reply from OP-2 where by the receipt of E.mail has been confirmed and it has been stated that the complaint has been forwarded to the concerned department. The Ex.CW1/C is again an E.mail by the complainant in which he has stated that on call from the service centre he has contacted the service centre whereby he was requested to take another old handset instead of the lost one to which he refused. The respondent no.2 has simply filed his written statement and an affidavit in support of the averments mad there in and has not filed any other documentary evidence.

      We have gone through the pleadings of both the parties as well as the evidence placed on record.

It is an admitted fact that the mobile phone was purchased for a sum of Rs.10,299/- from respondent No.2. it is also a fact that the same was delivered to the authorized service centre during the warranty period. It is also proved by the E-mail placed on record that the mobile phone has been lost by the service centre. The complainant has been able to prove his case deficiency in service. We hold that the respondent/OPs have been deficient in providing the service to the consumer and infact have lost the mobile phone therefore the OPs are liable to replace the handset by any one. In case, if the company has stopped manufacturing the hand set in question then it should pay Rs.10,300/- towards the cost of the mobile phone and Rs.4,000/- towards compensation which shall include the cost of litigation also. The cost shall be paid within 45 days from the date of the order. If the cost of compensation not paid within 45 days, the respondent entitled to pay 12% interest over this amount from the date of the order.

 

                                                                                                                                                           

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rule