Delhi

East Delhi

CC/260/2015

PRADEEP - Complainant(s)

Versus

MICROMAX - Opp.Party(s)

06 Nov 2017

ORDER

                        CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

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

                                                                                                  Consumer Complaint no.        260 / 2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  13/04/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 06/11/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          07/11/2017  In matter of

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Meena, adult        

R/o – E-103, DMRC Staff quarters

Metro Vihar, Shastri Park,  Delhi 110053………..……………..…………….Complainant

                                                                   

                                                                     Vs

1 M/s VI Communication

83A, 1^st Floor, Radhey Puri Extn.,

Jagat puri Main Road, Delhi 110051

 

2- Micromax

Micromax House,

90B, Sec. 18, Gurgaon, Haryana-122015 ….……………..…………..……….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 canvas turbo mobile A250 model from Prakash Sales Corporation through Snapdeal on 28/01/2014 for a sum of Rs 16657/-vide IMEI no. 911334750690001 vide invoice no. 9232211 (Ex CW1/1).

After using for about eight months, the said mobile developed some problem in display as touch screen was not working properly, so mobile was taken to OP1 on 16/09/2014 (Ex CW1/2) vide job sheet no. 301598091412227514 and was assured to return the set within 7 days and got his mobile back.  Again on 12/01/2015, same problem occurred, so mobile was taken to OP1 vide job sheet no. 0315980514438723 (Ex CW1/3). OP 1 did not rectify the problem, so complainant lodged complaint at Govt Mediation Centre on 21/01/2015 where OP was directed to get the defects removed within one day and would extend the warranty for three months wef 13/02/2015 to 12/05/2015 (Ex CW1/4). As per complainant when OP did not rectify defects, complainant filed this complaint against OP on 13/04/2015 claiming refund of the cost of his mobile a sum of Rs 16657/-with compensation of Rs 20,000/-for mental harassment and Rs 15,000/-litigation charges. 

After receiving notice, OP3 /Micromax as manufacturer of this mobile, submitted an application for dismissing the complaint for the want of territorial jurisdiction on the ground that the order of Govt Mediation Centre was passed from New Delhi, so complaint would had been filed in New Delhi forum. It was also stated that complainant did not avail the extended warranty period given in the order in order of Mediation Centre which was upto 12/05/2015 and complainant filed this complaint much before the remaining warranty tenure and cause of action did not arise. Hence, it was a premature complaint and may be dismissed.  

Neither complainant nor OP submitted their evidences on affidavit till the date of arguments, but the matter was prolonged for settlement from 13/02/2016 to 06/11/2017.

Arguments were heard from complainant who was present in person. None were present from OP side despite of issuing notices. The file was perused and order was reserved. 

We have seen that complainant did not defend his case properly as per the Act, hence there was no merit in the case and deserves to be dismissed with cost. The complainant neither availed free services as provided by the Mediation Centre nor tried to collect the mobile from OP1/service centre. As there was no manufacturing defect proved by any evidence from complainant, so no deficiency in services on the part of OP 3 was proved nor any deficiency in services from the seller/Snapdeal.

As complainant had left one month warranty, but filed this complaint without any evidence of service taken from OP1, so in the interest of justice, we direct complainant to get his mobile repaired from OP1 within 30 days from the receiving of this order.

 

OP1 shall provide the defect free handset in the time period. Failing to comply the order, OP1 shall refund 50% of the cost of the mobile (Rs 8330/) with 6% interest from the date of expiry of warranty tenure (12/05/2015) till realization as complainant had used his mobile defect free for over eight months.  There shall be no order to cost.   

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per the Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 ( in short CPR)  and file be consigned to the Record Room under Section 20(1) of CPR.

 

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

 

                                                                 Sukhdev Singh  President