Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/379

GAGAN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

MICROMAX - Opp.Party(s)

02 Feb 2017

ORDER

       CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                                      Date of institution: 15.06.2015

Complaint Case. No.379/15                                                          Date of order:  02.02.2017                   

IN  MATTER OF

Shri Gagan Kumar R/o D-111, Camp No.2, Nangloi Delhi-110041                                                                                                                                                                               Complainant

VERSUS

Head Office, Micromax House, 90B Sector-18, Gurgaon, Pin Code-122015.                                                                                                                                                               Opposite party-1

 

M/S Durga Communications, Authorized Service Center of Micromax, Office no.-1, A-3, DDA Mkt. Pashim Vihar, New Delhi-110063                                                Opposite party-2

 

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

 

The present complaint is filed by Gagan Kumar herein complainant under section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act for directions to the opposite parties for compensation.

Brief relevant facts for disposal of the present complaint are that one mobile handset of make Micromax Canvas Duet EG-111 having IMEI NO. 911326450018475 and 9199029000737 was purchased by the complainant for sale consideration of Rs. 14,500/- on 23.2.2014. The mobile handset developed fault on 8.05.2015 out of warranty. The complainant approached opposite Party no.2 for repair of the handset. Who told him that Rs 500/- shall be charged for the repairs. The complainant deposited the handset with opposite party no. 2 vide job sheet no. NO31834-0515-16521245dated 08.5.2015 for repairs. The complainant next day visited the opposite party no.2 to collect the handset. But was returned without repair. The opposite party no. 2 told the complainant that there is fault in motherboard of the handset, therefore, Rs 6000/- shall be charged for repair. The complainant was taken aback on account of such exorbitant repair cost. He lodged

       -2-

complaint with opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.1 told the complainant to visit opposite party no.2.  But to no effect. On asking of the opposite party 1 the complainant third time visited the opposite party no. 2. Who after proper checking of the handset orally told  that Rs. 3500/- shall be charged for repair of the handset. The complainant  refused to pay the amount for repairs. Hence the present complaint for directions to opposite parties to pay compensation for mental and physical sufferings.

Notice of the complaint was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite party no.1filed reply to the complaint while raising preliminary objections that the complaint is false and  frivolous and they never refuse to provide after sale services to the complainant as per  terms and conditions of warranty. They further asserted that they told the complainant that Rs 5700/-is estimated repair charges. The complainant refused to pay the same and filed a   false and frivolous complainant. They further asserted that they are ready to provide after sale service as per the policy of warranty. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The opposite party no. 2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 06.01.2016.

The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of the opposite party no. 1 and once again reiterated his stand taken in the complaint. He asserted that in the job sheet estimated cost of repairs is Rs. 500/-. He controverted the stand taken by the opposite party no. 1 in their reply. He again asserted that the opposite party no. 1 adopted unfair trade practice and failed to provide services to the complainant. He once again prayed for directions to the opposite parties to pay compensation for mental and physical sufferings.   

The parties were asked to lead evidence by way of affidavits. The complainant filed affidavit dated 21.06.2016 reiterating his stand taken in the complaint and relied upon copy of job sheet dated 08.05.2015 and copies of emails. The opposite party no. 1 filed affidavit of Shri Mohd. Asad Shakeel dated 29.08.2016 reiterating their stand taken in the reply.

On perusal of the job sheet dated 08.05.2015 it reveals that the complainant gave the mobile handset with IMEI NO. 911326450018475 and 9199029000737 for repairs to opposite party no. 1 on 08.05.2015. The warranty had already expired. The opposite party no. 2 gave estimate of Rs. 5700/- for repair of the handset. The complainant himself did not pay repair charges.   There is no material on record to show that there is negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

We have heard complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 and have gone through material on record carefully and thoroughly.

    -3-

The complainant has failed to produce any document to show that there is any negligence or deficiency in service except his affidavit which is rebutted by the affidavit of the opposite party. He relied upon job sheet to show that opposite party gave estimate of Rs 500/- for repair of the handset. But perusal of the job sheet shows that opposite party gave estimate of Rs. 5700/-. He himself was not ready to pay the repair charges. The opposite party no.2 is ready to repair the mobile handset of complainant on payment of requisite charge. Hence there is no negligence and deficiency in service on part of opposite parties. The complaint is false and frivolous. Therefore, deserves dismissal.

In light of above discussion and observations, the complaint fails. Resultantly dismissed.     

Order pronounced on : 02.02.2017.

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                    (URMILA GUPTA)                                        (R.S.  BAGRI)

   MEMBER                                                       MEMBER                                                  PRESIDENT