DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 510/2015
D.No.____________________ Dated: _________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
DHIREN GUPTA S/o SH. SUKHI CHAND,
R/o 1486-E, RANI BAGH,
SHAKUR BASTI, DELHI-110034.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD.,
21/14-A, PH-II, NARAYANA INDL. AREA,
DELHI-110028.
2. GADGET CAFÉ (DEALER),
1486, MAIN SANT NAGAR ROAD,
RANI BAGH,DELHI-110034.… OPPOSITE PARTY (IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 07.05.2015Date of decision: 01.02.2019
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant purchased a mobile handset of Micromax model Canvas-2.2 from OP-2 for Rs.10,400/- on 26.05.2014 vide invoice no. 158 and also purchased insurance plan of Rs.1,040/- for
CC No.510/2015 Page 1 of 5
additional 1year warrantee i.e. for the period from 26.05.2014 to 25.05.2016 issued by M/s Smart Mobile Total Solution. The complainant further alleged that since the purchase of the mobile handset, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi of the mobile handset was defected. The complainant lodged the complaint with the dealer who advised for change of memory card. On repeated insistence by the complainant, mobile handset sent by the dealer to the company. On repeated visits by the complainant, the company returned the mobile handset without repair. The complainant then took the mobile handset to authorized service centre of the company in Sec.-3, Rohini, Delhi and was refused and was directed to go to Shalimar Bagh dealer and from where the complainant was directed to go to Rani Bagh dealer where the service centre checked the mobile handset and informed the complainant that the mother board of the mobile handset is to be changed and the mother board is not available in the company and it will take about 2 month time. On repeated insistence by the complainant, the Rani Bagh authorized service centre kept the mobile handset on 04.05.2015 on the assurance of giving new phone or replacement of mother board with extended warrantee of 6 months. The complainant further alleged that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 as the mobile handset has not been used even for one month.
CC No.510/2015 Page 2 of 5
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint against OPs with a prayer for direction to OPs to refund the purchase price, price of insurance plan total Rs.11,440/- and has also sought compensation for causing harassment and mental agony and litigation charges.
3. Only OP-1 has been contesting the case and has taken the defence that the complainant has failed to produce terms of warrantee to show the defect in the mobile handset was covered under the terms & conditions of the warrantee. OP-1 further submitted that the complainant has used the mobile handset for about 11 months as the mobile handset was purchased on 26.05.2014 and was delivered for repair vide job card dated 04.05.2015 and the mobile handset was received as out of warrantee and an estimate of approx. Rs.2,000/- was given to the complainant and the complainant made the payment and the authorized service center returned the mobile handset after repair and thereafter the complainant did not approach the service center for repair and thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1.
4. In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and has also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of retail invoice dated 26.05.2014 regarding purchase of the mobile handset Micromax model Canvas 2.2 of Rs.10,400/-, copy of mobile phone protection plan of
CC No.510/2015 Page 3 of 5
Rs.1,040/-, copy of job sheet dated 04.05.2015 showing estimate of Rs.2,000/- as estimated by service center.
5. On the other hand, OP-1 did not file any affidavit of any official of OP-1 in evidence despite giving various opportunities. However, OP-1 also filed written submissions.
6. This Forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence of the complainant and documents placed on record. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. OP-1 has failed to prove any document to show as to when the repaired mobile handset was returned to the complainant and when the estimated repair charges of Rs.2,000/- was paid by the complainant. It seems that OP-1 has taken a bogus and false defence which cannot be believed. Accordingly, OP-1is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. It is on record that the complainant has used the mobile handset for about 11 months.
7. Accordingly, OP-1is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.7,000/- being the depreciated value of the mobile handset on return of accessories, original invoice and job sheet.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- as
CC No.510/2015 Page 4 of 5
compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant whichincludes litigation cost.
8. The above amount shall be paid by the OP-1 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order failing which OP-1 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving of this order till the date of payment. If OP-1 fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 1st day of February, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.510/2015 Page 5 of 5
