Delhi

East Delhi

CC/127/2014

ABU AHMAD - Complainant(s)

Versus

MICROMAX - Opp.Party(s)

06 Nov 2017

ORDER

                            CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.        127 / 2014

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  01/02/2014

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 06/11/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          07/11/2017  In matter of

Mr. Abu Ahmed, adult   

S/0 -Sh Imtiaz Ahmed    

R/0- 216/2, R Block, Ramesh Park  

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092………………..……………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                   

                                                                     Vs

1 M/s Outlook Communication      

U-180, Main Vikas Marg,

Shakarpur, Delhi110092

2- M/s The Mobile Care      

B-36, Guru Nanak Pura, opp. V3S Mall

Delhi 10092

3- Micromax …………………………………….……………..…………..……….Opponents

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case                               

Complainant purchased Micromax mobile, A 63 model from OP1/Outlook Communication on 01/11/2013 for a sum of Rs 6800/-and IMEI no. 911331650081562 vide invoice no. OC/RI/13/02830 (Ex CW1/1).

The said mobile developed some problem in camera and battery was not charging properly, so mobile was taken to OP2 on 20/01/2014 (Ex CW1/2) and was assured to return the set in 7 days. After 7 days complainant went to collect the mobile from OP 2 office, the mobile was not repaired, but OP2 offered another old mobile for use till his mobile gets repaired which was not taken by complainant. The complainant again visited to get his mobile to OP2, but his mobile was neither repaired the problems nor mobile was returned. Thus, seeing negligent services of OP2, complainant suffered mental, physical harassment and financial loss, so filed this complaint claiming refund of the cost of his mobile a sum of Rs 6800/-with compensation Rs 20,000/-for mental harassment and Rs 15,000/-litigation charges. 

After receiving notice, OP3 /Micromax as manufacturer of this mobile, submitted written statement on the behalf of OP and OP2 and denied all allegations as wrong and incorrect. It was also stated that complaints were timely rectified (as per job sheet on record), but complainant did not return to take his mobile after rectifying the defects of software despite of informing him repeatedly. As the said mobile had standard warranty of one year and complaint was filed after first free service of two months use, so, this misconceived complaint may be dismissed.   

Complainant filed his evidences on affidavit, but did not file rejoinder. Complainant stated on affidavit that all his contents and evidences were correct and were on record. OP did not file his evidences.

Arguments were heard from complainant who was present in person. None were present from OP side. The file was perused and order was reserved. 

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was evident that the complainant had purchased mobile and under warranty period. The complainant neither availed free services in one year nor collected the mobile from OP2, but filed this complaint, hence the cause of action does not arise here. It was also evident that the said mobile had no manufacturing defect. Hence, there was neither deficiency in providing services by OP1 nor any deficiency proved by complainant against OP1 or 3 by any evidence.

So, both the OPs are not liable for any unfair trade practice or deficient in services also.   

So, we come to the conclusion that this complaint has no merit and deserve to be dismissed, but OP has mentioned in their written statement that repaired mobile was lying with OP2/service center. That being so, we direct the complainant to take his mobile within 15 days of receiving of this order. We also direct OP2 to  hand over the repaired mobile in good working condition and shall extend warranty of one year from the date of handing over of this mobile through OP3.  There shall be no order to cost.

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 ( in short CPR)  and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20(1) of CPR.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari –Member                                                                      Mrs Harpreet Kaur – Member

 

                                                                 Sukhdev Singh  President