Delhi

East Delhi

CC/8/2015

PUSHPENDER - Complainant(s)

Versus

MICROMAX - Opp.Party(s)

03 Aug 2015

ORDER

pDISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-110092

 

CC No.215/2012:

In the Matter of:       

       Mr. Pushpender Khatana,

       Room No. 750, Old Boys Hostel,

       G.T.B.Hospital, Dilshad Garden,

       Delhi                                                                             

Complainant

                                                                                                                                            

                                      Vs

 

       1. Sai Electronics

           Shop No.28, Pocket B & F,

           DDA Market, Dilshad Garden,

           Delhi

 

        2.  Smart Mobile Total Solution

       C/216, Yamuna Vihar,

        Delhi.

 

         3.  M/s. Micromax House

        90-B, Sector-18, Gurgaon,

        Haryana - 122015

Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                         Date of Admission-08/01/2015

                                                                                         Date of Order        - 03/08/2015

SUBHASH GUPTA (Member):

 

                The Complainant has purchased a mobile phone Micromax A-117, IMEI No. 911334851029695  on  13/01/2014  from Sai Electronics  (OP No.1) for a sum of Rs. 13,500/- vide Retail Invoice dated 13/01/2014 Book No. 236, Invoice No. 47144 and the same was also insured by Smart Mobile Total Solutions (OP No.2) vide Sl. No. DL - 40324 for a period from 13/01/2014 to 12/01/2016.  This protection plan gave two years warranty / insurance cover against Liquid & Physical Damage to the handset. The customer copy of the insurance plan also bears the signatures and stamp of OP No.1. The complainant arrayed M/s. Micromax as (O.P. No.3) being the manufacturer of the mobile handset. It is alleged in the complaint that the mobile was giving trouble from the first day of its purchase and it was defective.  It is stated that the mobile was given for repairs at the Authorised Service Centre vide Job Card No.2029 on 19/09/2014, which has neither been repaired nor returned so far.  The Complainant has alleged that the OPs are guilty of deficiency in service and are liable to refund the cost of the handset with Rs. 40,000/- as compensation on account of agony and harassment and Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation.

 

           Notice of the complaint was issued and served on all the OPs for 02/03/2015 but none appeared for OP Nos. 1 & 2.  Only Shri Satyaveer Sharma appeared for OP No.3. All of them have chosen not to file any reply to the complaint. Thus, the allegations made in the complaint remain unrebutted.

 

           The Complainant has filed his Affidavit in support of his complaint and documents.

We have gone through the complaint and the documents enclosed therewith. It is evident from the record that the mobile was purchased on 13/01/2014 from OP No.1 and the warranty remained in force for one year i.e.12/01/2015. The Insurance/Protection Plan extended this warranty up to 12/01/2016.  The Job Card dated 19/09/2014 issued by the Authorized Service Centre shows that the "screen was damaged".  As such in our view no liability can be fastened on OP No.3.

 

            However, as OP Nos.1 & 2 have induced the Complainant for purchase of Mobile Phone Protection Plan for an extra amount of Rs.1,000/-  which gave two years warranty against Liquid and Physical Damage. An endorsement of OP No.1 on the Customer Copy is sufficient to establish that they were deficient in providing the service to the Complainant.

 

                In view of the above facts and circumstances, we hold that the OP Nos.1 & 2 have been deficient in providing service to the complainant and have neither refunded the cost of handset nor returned his mobile handset to him which he had submitted to the Authorized Service Centre for repairs.  Therefore, they are liable and directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards the cost of the mobile phone as the sum of Rs.1,500/- charged as VAT cannot be refunded as the same being deposited in the Govt. treasury. The OP Nos.1 & 2 shall also pay a sum of Rs.4,000/-  as compensation which shall include the cost of litigation also. If this amount is not paid within 45 days, the OP Nos.1 & 2 shall be liable to pay 9% p.a. interest over this amount from the date of the order till the date of payment.

 

              Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rule.

 

 

 

(Subhash Gupta)                              (Poonam Malhotra)                                       (N.A.Zaidi)

        Member                                               Member                                                 President