DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 862/2014
D.No.____________________ Dated: _________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
MUKESH VERMA,
R/o H. No.1, GALI No.6,
WAZIRABAD VILLAGE,
DELHI-110084. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. MICROMAX,
MICROMAX HOUSE,90-B, SEC.18,
GURGAON-122015 (HARYANA).
2. M/s AVJ COMMUNICATION,
454/4, BHARDWAJ BHAWAN,
NANI WALA BAGH, NEAR AKASH CINEMA,
AZADPUR, NEW DELHI-110033. … OPPOSITE PARTY (IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 28.07.2014 Date of decision: 01.02.2019
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant purchased a mobile handset of Micromax model no. A-30 for Rs.3,900/- on 16.01.2013 from North-West Marketers (P)
CC No.862/2014 Page 1 of 5
Ltd., Hudson Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi vide invoice no.34240 dated 16.01.2013. That after 4 months of the purchase of the mobile handset, the same is not working and no sound was coming and was using the mobile handset in hand free mode as the complainant was working at that time in Hyderabad. When the complainant returned to Delhi, the mobile handset was handed over to OP-2 i.e. Authorized Service Centre on 25.07.2013 and the service centre took 2 month time for changing the speaker. The complainant again went to Hyderabad for his work and there again the complainant felt the same problem in the mobile handset. On return to Delhi, the complainant again deposited the handset with OP-2 on 07.11.2013 and since then the mobile handset has not returned and is lying with the service centre. The complainant accordingly alleged that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint against OPswith a prayer for replacement of the mobile handset and seeking compensation for causing harassment and mental agony.
3. Only OP-1 has been contesting the case and has filed written statement whereas OP-2 did not choose to contest the case despite service of notice sent through speed post which was delivered and OP-2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 27.04.2017.
CC No.862/2014 Page 2 of 5
4. In its written statement OP-1 submitted that OP-1 never denied to provide after sale services to the complainant under the terms of warrantee and still ready to provide the same subject to the terms of warrantee. However, OP-1 admitted the factum of purchase of the mobile handset by the complainant on 16.01.2013 and the complainant approached the authorized service centre for removal of defect for the 1st time on 25.07.2013 and again on 07.11.2013. OP-1 further submitted that the authorized service centre repaired the mobile handset and intimated to the complainant to collect the repaired handset but the complainant did not collect the mobile handset from the service centre and has filed the present case on false grounds and prayed for rejection of the complaint.
5. Complainant did not file rejoinder.
6. In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and has also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on recordcopy of retail invoice dated 16.01.2013 regarding purchase of the mobile handset Micromax model A-30 bearing IMEI no. 911247000039029 of Rs.3,900/-, copies of job sheets dated 25.07.2013 & 07.11.2013 having same defect.
7. On the other hand, OP-1 did not file any affidavit of any official of OP-1 in evidence despite giving last opportunity and on 12.01.2017, Counsel for OP-1 submitted that no evidence on behalf of OP-1 is to be lead. However, OP-1 also filed written submissions.
CC No.862/2014 Page 3 of 5
8. This Forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence of the complainant and documents placed on record. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. OP-1 has failed to prove any document to show as to when the complainant was intimated by OP-2 that mobile handset has been repaired and on which date OP-2 asked the complainant to collect the repaired mobile handset from authorized service centre. It seems that OP-1 has taken a bogus and false defence which cannot be believed. Accordingly, OPs are held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. It is on record that the complainant has used the mobile handset for about 6 months.
9. Accordingly, both the OPsjointly or severally are directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- being the depreciated value of the mobile handset on return of accessories, original invoice and job sheets.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant whichincludes litigation cost.
10. The above amount shall be paid by the both the OPs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving of this
CC No.862/2014 Page 4 of 5
order till the date of payment. If OPs fail to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 1stday of February, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
