Delhi

East Delhi

CC/63/2014

KAPIL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MICROMAX - Opp.Party(s)

04 Oct 2016

ORDER

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

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

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.        63 / 2014

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                16/01/2014

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                  4/10/2016

                                                                                                  Date of Order                           5/10/2016  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

 

Mr Kapil Jain  adult   

S/o   Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain 

R/o  E 2/11, Krishna Nagar

Delhi 110051 …………...…………………………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1 M/s Micromax Informatics Ltd. 

90 B, Sec 18

Gurgaon 122015

 

2 The Mobile Care 

B 36, Guru Nanak pura,  oppo. V 3 S Mall 

Nr Maharaja Banquet Hall  Laxmi Nagar, Delhi

 

3 M/s Infinity Retail Ltd

Unit no. 201, 2^nd Floor, Akruti Centre Point

Next to Marol Telephone Exchange

MIDC, Mumbai 4000093…………………………………………………….Opponents

 

Complainant……………………………………In Person

Opponent 1&2 ..……………………………..Advo. Satya Vir Sharma

 

 

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 Canvas 4 from OP3 through online for a sum of Rs 17999/- vide Annexure I. Mobile started giving problem after one month of its purchase so was taken to OP2 as co. authorized service station on 08/08/2013 vide job sheet no. R1309FDLI5542270  annexed here as Annexure II.

 

Complainant approached number of times to OP2 for getting mobile back after repair, but could not get satisfactory response or his mobile back. Hence, filed this complaint.

 

Notices were served. OPs represented through their counsel. Before submission of written statement by OPs, both the parties agreed for mutual settlement through National Lok Adalat which was to be held on 06/12/2014, but later settlement could not be arrived between the parties, so, OPs submitted their written statement. It was accepted that the said mobile was purchased on 28/07/2013and was taken to their service centre for power switch off. The problem was rectified and OP2 sent number of SMS to complainant to collect the mobile, but he did not collect the same and filed this complaint. Hence, there was no deficiency on the part of OPs, so this complaint may be dismissed.

 

Evidences were filed by complainant on affidavit. OPs did not file their evidences. The case was listed for arguments, but no parties were present on the date of argument. Later, on the next date of argument, despite of serving notices to complainant, he did not put up his appearance on the date of argument.

 

 

OPs advocate was present and  his arguments were heard and order was reserved.

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record, it was evident that the complainant had deposited his mobile with OP2 for repair just within two month of its purchase and OP submitted that they sent number of SMS to complainant for taking his repaired mobile, but they did not filed any evidence to this fact. OPs also submitted that the said mobile was received by the complainant and he was using the same for more than a year without defect. Considering this fact of OP, complainant did not file any relevant evidence pertaining to his mobile till the date of argument and his non appearance on number of dates proves that he was not interested in contesting his case to prove OPs deficiency in providing services or the said mobile had any manufacturing defect.

Hence, we come to the conclusion that this complaint has no merit and the same deserve to be dismissed, so dismissed without cost.

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

 

Mrs Harpreet Kaur                                                                                  (Dr) P N Tiwari

Member                                                                                                     Member                                                                                    

                                                 Shri Sukhdev Singh

                                                             President