Delhi

East Delhi

CC/947/2013

AMIT GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MICROMAX - Opp.Party(s)

05 Apr 2017

ORDER

                DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

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

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.       947 / 2013

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                 05/11/2013

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                05/04/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                         07/04/2017  In matter of

Mr Amit Gupta, adult   

s/o- Anil Kumar Gupta   

R/o  B-3, Shiva Market, Gali no. 1

West Laxmi Market, Delhi 110031 …………...…………………………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1- The Micromax Solution Point (service centre) 

B 36, Guru Nanak Pura,  opp. V 3 S Mall 

Nr Maharaja Banquet Hall Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092

 

2- Micromax  House   

90 B, Sec 18

Gurgaon 122015 ……………………………………………..………….Opponents

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                    

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                    

Complainant purchased a Micromax mobile dual SIM model no. A87 vide IMEI no. 91123483112756 from OP1 for a sum of Rs 11526/-vide invoice no. 1376 on dated 20/12/2012 from M/s Mobile Guru situated at main road Gandhi Nagar Delhi with one year warranty marked as Ex CW1/1.

The said mobile started giving problem after seven months of its purchase as power does not switch off and battery getting discharge very fast so visited authorized service centre OP1, but it was refused to accept the mobile as their service centre was non functional at that time and was advised to visit other service centre. It was stated that even after next visit, OP1 did not accept the mobile for repair so felt harassed and sent legal notice for refund of the cost of mobile with compensation as marked here Ex CW1/2.

 

When no reply of legal notice was received then filed this complaint claiming refund of cost of his mobile Rs 11526/- with compensation Rs 50,000/- for harassment and litigation charges Rs 11,000/- 

Notices were served. OP2 appeared and submitted their written statement denying all the allegations put by complainant. It was stated that the said mobile was used for over six months, had no problem and when some problem occurred, at that time OP1 was not functional due to some work and was advised to approach to another service centre, but complainant did not go to other service centre and sent legal notice for refund of cost. As there was no evidence of defect in his mobile, so this complaint be dismissed.  

Complainant filed his rejoinder with evidence on affidavit and reaffirmed facts of his complaint and stated that OP1 intentionally refused to accept his mobile for repair and his claim for refund was justified. OP did not file evidence. Arguments were heard and order reserved.          

 

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record, it was evident that the complainant went to deposit his mobile with OP1 for repair, but did not do so because of refusal by OP1 as his service centre was not functional at that time. Complainant did not go to other authorized service centres of OP2 for redressal of his grievances. There was no evidence on record which can show us that complainant was in need of his mobile phone rather he sent a legal notice for refund of his amount. Also no evidence is on record which can prove that complainant got his mobile repaired immediately from other sources. So, we do not find any deficiency in OPs.

We come to the conclusion that this complaint has no merit and the same deserves to be dismissed without any order as to cost.       

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari Member                                                                           Mrs  Harpreet Kaur  Member                                                                                                     

                                                                                   

                                                  Shri Sukhdev Singh President