Delhi

East Delhi

CC/339/2014

GARGI BALA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MICROMAX - Opp.Party(s)

05 Jul 2017

ORDER

                          CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

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

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.        339 / 2014

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  04/04/2014

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 05/07/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          07/07/2017  In matter of

Mrs Gargi Bala, adult   

D/o  sh R S Kalra  

R/0- 73, Block 1B, Kali Bari Marg  

New Delhi 110001 ………………….. ………………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1 M/s Micromax Service Centre,     

C- 0/213, Guru Nanak Pura, opp. LIC Office Building

Nr Nirman Vihar Metro stn., Delhi 110092

 

2 Micromax Company    

Micromax Informatics Ltd.,

21/14A, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase 1, 

New Delhi 110028…………………………………………..…………..……….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 Micromax mobile from Bhagwati Electronics on dated 26/04/2013 for a sum of Rs 10,500/-having model A110, IMEI no. 911306900406678 and 911306900611673 vide invoice no. 30329 marked as Ex CW1/1.

Complainant stated that in the month of Dec. 2013, mobile had automatic switch off problems, so mobile was taken to its authorized service station as micromax services centre/OP1 and showed her mobile to the manager of the service centre who told that the mother board of the phone was defective due to water leakage and would require replacement on cost Rs 2500/-, thus complainant agreed and paid the amount. The said mobile was returned in the 3^rd week of Dec., 2013, but no job sheet or bill of Rs 2500/- was given to her.   

Complainant stated that her mobile again developed SMS flashing problem in Jan. 2014, so on 27/01/2014 mobile was taken to service centre and it was told that soft ware problem had occurred so to come after one week. When complainant went to the centre, it was closed without specifying any reason.  On reaching service centre on 11/02/2014 again, it was opened.  It was told that the mobile would require some time, so alternate mobile was given on 26/02/2014 without battery. It was not working properly due to net work problem. No job sheet was given. Complainant purchased a duplicate battery on 23/03/2014. Even after charging card and battery, it was stated that replaced mobile was not working properly.

Complainant contacted number of times to the manager of service centre, but she did not get any satisfactory reply or got her original mobile repaired. It was stated that after lot of harassment, she did a police complaint on 25/03/2014. It was told by the service centre that her matter could be solved through consumer court only and police had no role in such complaints.  She inquired at service centre number of times even after police complaint, but it was closed all the time. She felt cheated and harassed, so filed this complaint claiming replacement with new sealed pack with one year warranty besides compensation Rs 50,000/- and cancellation of licence of the company.  

Notices were issued to the OPs. In the interest of justice and to get speedy trial, case was even referred to Govt Mediation centre vide its ref. no. 603/2014, but parties could not arrive at any settlement order dated 07/11/2014. Even an opportunity was given to the parties on their mutual consent, the case was fixed for National Lok Adalat held on 06/12/2014. As complainant could not settle her case with OP despite of OP was ready for settlement. When both the efforts failed, OP was asked to file the written statement. OP2 submitted written statement and denied the facts and alleged allegations in complaints as wrong and incorrect. It was submitted that complainant had purchased the said mobile 26/04/2013. It was also stated by OP that complainant received a swap hand set on 26/02/2014 and she deposited the same hand set on 27/03/2014 against a manual job card which OP denied to have issued any manual job sheet as they issue only computerized job sheet. It was stated that complainant used her first mobile for over 11 month and was repaired by OP1 as and when any problem occurred free of cost.

The allegation of major defect in mother board occurred and was replaced by paying Rs 2500/- was without any evidence as proof, so was denied. Also there were no job sheets for services undertaken by complainant during warranty tenure and no expert report to prove that the said mobile had manufacturing defect.

It was stated that OP were ready to rectify any defect or grievances, but replacement or refund was denied. OP2 stated that their products have all the detail information in their user manual besides carries one year standard warranty. OP2 submitted that no concrete evidence was submitted to establish deficiency in service of OP1 or any evidence of defect in the product or crashed mother board was replaced by OP1 for which OP2 may be liable. As the said mobile had no manufacturing defect or deficiency in service provided by OP1 and 2,so this complaint may be dismissed. 

Complainant filed her rejoinder to joint written statement with evidence on affidavit where she stated on affidavit as her mobile was a defective product and all the facts and evidence submitted were true and correct.

The evidences were also submitted for OP1 and 2 jointly through Mr Mohd Asad Shakeel, Manager legal with OP2, affirmed on affidavit that OP2 had submitted all the related evidence on record were true and correct.

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was evident that the complainant had purchased his mobile from elsewhere and had taken services under warranty period from OP1. But there was no evidence from complainant to prove that the said mobile was defective or deficient services were given by the OP1. As far as paying Rs 2500/- for replacing mother board is concerned, there were no evidence or job sheet of OP1 to sustain the allegation of complainant. Also, complainant had not disclosed that she had purchased a new mobile from the same seller as new mobile IMEI were written in cash bill / invoice Ex CW1/1 and no evidence of police report and its outcome.

Hence, there was no deficiency in the service provided by OP1. Complainant has failed in proving deficiency of OPs. We come to the conclusion that this complaint has no merit and that being so the complaint deserves to be dismissed without any cost to order.

 

 

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per Act and file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

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

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                         

                                                       Shri Sukhdev Singh

                                                                       President