Delhi

East Delhi

CC/641/2015

MANOJ KR - Complainant(s)

Versus

MICROMAX - Opp.Party(s)

23 Mar 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.      641 / 2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                22/08/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on               23/03/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                        24/03/2017  In matter of

Manoj Kumar, adult   

S/o   Sh. Rajveer Singh 

R/o  D 309, west Vinod Nagar

Delhi 110092………..…………...…………………………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1 M/s Aman Telecom

D 191, Nalanda Chauk

West Vinod Nagar, Delhi 110092

 

2- M/s The Mobile care

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

Nr Maharaja Banquet Hall, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi

 

3 M/s Micromax Informatics Ltd. 

90 B, Sec 18

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

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                       

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                    

Complainant purchased a Micromax mobile A 104 on 16/12/2014 from OP1 for a sum of Rs 6952/-vide invoice no. 00412 having IMEI no. 911368058902312 as marked Ex.CW1/1.

 

The said mobile developed some problem, so was taken to the authorized service centre/ OP2 on 08/05/2015 vide job sheet no. 306660515-16515138 and was assured to give back after repair in 7 days.  On reaching the specific time ie on 15/05/2015, it was told that some more time would be required so come after some time. When mobile was not returned by OP2, complainant asked the reason for delay in rectifying the problem, OP did not give satisfactory reply as marked Ex. CW/1/2. Complainant approached number of times to OP2 for getting mobile back after repair, but could not get satisfactory response or his mobile back. On seeing the defective service and rude behavior of OP2, complainant filed this complaint claiming refund of cost of his mobile Rs 6952/ with compensation of Rs 50,000/- and Rs 15,000/- as litigation charges.  

Notices were served. OP1 and 2 did not put their appearance but OP3 represented through their counsel and submitted written statement denying all the allegations put against them. It was submitted that OP1 had sold the mobile and service was done by their authorized service centre/OP2. As there was no manufacturing defect and complainant used the said mobile for over five months without any problem. Hence, there was no deficiency on the part of OP3, so this complaint may be dismissed against them.

Complainant submitted his rejoinder and evidence on affidavit where he affirmed that defects had not been rectified by OP2 and also mobile had not been returned by OP2.

OP3 also submitted their evidence on affidavit through Mohd Asad Shakeel, manager Legal and stated on oath that the said mobile had no manufacturing defect and had no problem in using the said mobile for over 5 months.

Arguments were heard from both the parties through their counsels, but none put appearance from OP1 and 2. 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 after using his mobile for 5 months. OP 2 did not repair the mobile as per warranty tenure nor returned the said mobile to the complainant.  More so, neither written statement nor evidence were filed by OP2. This amounts to the deficiency in service on the part of OP2 and not returning the mobile to the complainant itself is an unfair practice. Considering these facts of OP2 and non appearance on number of dates proves that he was not interested in contesting his case on his part of deficiency in providing services or returning the said mobile to the complainant.  

Hence, we come to the conclusion that this complaint has merit and the same deserve to be allowed with following order-

 

 

1. OP2 is directed to rectify the defects in the said mobile and hand over in good functioning condition within 30 days of receiving this order.
2. OP2 shall also pay the compensation of Rs 2000/- for the harassment and mental agony caused along with Rs 1000/- as litigation charges in the stipulated time and shall extend warranty of 6 months through OP3 from the date of handing over the said mobile.  
3. If order is not complied in stipulated time, OP 2 and OP3 shall jointly refund the cost of the mobile with entire awarded amount in time with 6% interest till realization from the date of fling of this complaint.   

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                                                                      Shri  Sukhdev Singh President