Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/138/2015

Mukesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Micromax - Opp.Party(s)

12 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR

Consumer Complaint No.         :     138/2015

Date of Decision:                     :     12.08.2016

Mukesh S/o Mohinder Ram R/o VPO Jadla Tehsil Nawanshahr, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.

                                                                             …Complainant

Versus

1.       Gurdeep Singh S/o Sohan Singh (Badwal Telecom Jadla) VPO Jadla, Tehsil Nawanshahr District SBS Nagar.

2.       Micromax Care Centre, Near Truck Union Rahon Road Nawanshahr, Telephone 01823-508000.

3.       Micromax Mobile Company, Head Office, Micromax House, 90B, Sector – 18, Gurgaon, Pin Code – 122015, Tel: +91-124-4811000, Email: info@micromaxinfo.com.

                   …Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH.BHUPINDER SINGH, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

ARGUED BY:

For complainant            :         None.

For Op No.1                            :         Ex parte.

For OP No.2&3             :         Sh.M.P. Nayyar, Advocate

 

 

 

 

ORDER

SH.BHUPINDER SINGH, PRESIDENT

In brief the case of the complainant is that complainant has purchased a mobile phone of Micromax Company Model Number AQ 2001 on 04.12.2015 fro OP No.1 for Rs.7500/-.  On 16.12.2015, the said mobile started showing lining on screen and it got damaged automatically.  He reported the matter to OP No.1, who suggested to report to OP No.2.  On 18.12.2015, he visited to OP No.2 at Nawanshahr and shown his mobile to concerned person Mr.Pardeep Kumar at Centre but he flatly refused to entertain his request and asked to pay Rs.1800/- for replacement or repair of said mobile set.  He also called to Micromax Mobile Company but the attendant of company also asked to pay to care centre and get it replaced or repaired.  Therefore, it is prayed that complaint may be decided against OPs and in favour of complainant. 

2.       Upon notice, OP No.1 has filed reply stating therein that he sold the mobile Micromax AQ5001, Colour Silver Black, BTR No.V027751506703104809 IMEI No.911417759695905 and 9114177598897907 to complainant vide bill No.132 dated 04.12.2015.  The mobile, guarantee, warranty and service is provided by the company as entered in the bill book.  It is further stated he did not know whether this mobile fell down from pocket, fell into water, or pressed down in the tight pent pocket.  There is no guarantee of the above said circumstances/negligence.  There is no his responsibility in the working of above said mobile and prayed that this reply may be considered. 

3.       OP No.2&3 has also filed joint written statement that complaint is gross abuse of process of law and not maintainable in law; answering OPs never denied to provide its after sale services to the complainant and still ready to provide the same as per terms of the warranty; as per complainant he purchased the handset on 04.12.2015 and approached to service center on 18.12.2015 and during inspection the handset found physically damages and authorize service center demanded Rs.1800/- as repair charge, as the damages is due to mishandling and same not cover under the warranty, the complainant refused to pay the charges; complaint has been filed only with malaise motive to harass the answering OPs;  complainant’s allegations of major defect in the handset without adducing any documentary evidence; complainant’s case is sheer reflection of misuse of the mobile phone.  The warranty period covers the range of faults that ensue normally from mechanical functioning of the mobile set without any interference or outside influences; the limited warranty document is a part of the user manual and is inserted in every package of a cellular phone by answering OPs.  It is clearly provides the handset will be repaired “free of charges” by the answering OPs if it is covered under warranty.  Further, replacement as per the limited warranty terms is limited only to those cases where repair is not possible and or where there is a genuine problem of repeated repairs of the same problem; the main grievance of the complainant is that the set purchased by the complainant has not been services/repaired to his satisfaction by the company’s authorized service centre.  It is submitted that answering OPs are still willing to make service/repair the handset to the satisfaction of the complainant as per terms of warranty and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

4.       In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith document Ex.C-1 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Op No.1 has failed to appear, hence proceeded ex parte vide order dated 11.05.2016. 

6.       On the other hand, counsel for OP No.2&3 has tendered affidavit of Pardeep Kumar Ex.OP2/A and closed the evidence.  Further, in additional evidence, learned counsel for OP No2&3 has tendered photocopies of documents Ex.OP1/1 and Ex.OP2/ and closed the additional evidence.

7.       None has appeared on behalf of complainant for addressing arguments as such we have heard, counsel for the OP No.2&3 and have minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the parties with the valuable assistance of learned counsel for OPs No.2&3.

8.       From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and evidence produced on record, it stands fully proved on record that complainant purchased mobile in question from Op No.1 on 04.12.2015 vide invoice Ex.C-1 for a sum of Rs.7500/-.  The complainant in his complaint itself stated that the said mobile phone was physically damaged on 16.12.2015 as it started showing lining on screen.  The complainant has approached OP No.1 who told to complainant to approach the customer care centre at Nawanshahr or the company.  The complainant approached Op No.2&3 for repair of mobile but they did not pay any heed to the request of complainant.  Complainant in his complaint has alleged that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua complainant.  Whereas, the OP No.2&3 has submitted that the complainant never approached the OPs No.2&3 nor he submitted or produced the mobile set so that they could be able to rectify the defect, if any, in the mobile set of the complainant as per warranty terms and conditions.  The complainant has not produced any evidence in the form of job sheet to prove that he ever approached the Op No.2&3 with mobile set so that they could rectify the defect, if any, of the mobile set in question as per warranty terms and conditions.  Whereas, the complainant himself has admitted that his mobile set was physically damaged as it was showing lining on the screen.  As per terms and conditions of the warranty Ex.OP2/2, clause No.3, company shall not be obliged to undertake repair of products found liquid damaged, physical damaged.  So OPs No.2&3 were justified in not repairing the mobile set of the complainant under the terms and conditions of the warranty of the product/mobile of the complainant without charges.  As such, there is no deficiency in services on the part of OPs qua the complainant. 

9.       Resultantly, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

10.     Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties, as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Dated:  12.08.2016

 

                                                          (BHUPINDER SINGH)

                                                          President

         

                                                          (KANWALJEET SINGH)

                                                          Member