DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

Case No.929/2013:

In the matter of :

Sh. Sunil Hira

S/o. Sh. M.L.Hira

R/o. B-103, GF, Ramprastha,

Ghaziabad, U.P. – 201 011.

Complainant

Vs.

1. Micromax Informatics Ltd.

    (Through its Managing Director)

    Micromax House,

    90B, Sector – 18,

    Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 015

2. M/s The Mobile Care

    (Through its Director)

    B-36, Guru Nanak Pura,

    Opp. V3S Mall, Near Maharaja Banquet Hall,

    Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110 092

3. M/s. Sharma Communications

    (Through its Director)

     D – 77, No.2, Bus Stand,

     Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P.                                                              

     Respondents

Date of Admission : 06/11/2013

                                                                                    Date of Order          : 16/03/2015

ORDER

Ms. Poonam Malhotra, Member:

            Through this order we shall dispose of an application moved by the Respondent No.I challenging the jurisdiction of this Forum in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1567/2012 in the complaint titled Wg. Com. P. Kosalairaman vs. Chief Executive M/s. Whirlpool of India Ltd. & 2 Ors. It is alleged that as the Tab in question was purchased from Ghaziabad, the Forum at Ghaziabad shall have jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The brief facts of the present complaint are that on 23/10/2014 the complainant purchased a Micromax Funbook Tab IMEI No.911235600300693 for a sum of Rs.7,500/- vide Bill No. 919 dated 23/10/2012 from Respondent No.III.   When the complainant opened the box he found scratches on the body of the Tab, the voice of the other side could not be heard clearly and its touch was also faulty.  The complainant approached the Respondent No.III but it denied recognising the problem.  The request of the complainant to replace the Tab was also turned down.  After 10 days when the complainant reapproached the respondent it received the Tab for repairs and it was returned it to the complainant after four days after changing its receiver. Not satisfied with it the complainant again approached the Respondent No.III but it expressed its inability to improve the voice quality any further. It is alleged that the Job Sheet against which the receiver was changed was lost by the Respondent No.III.  Thereafter, on 14/08/2013 the complainant again submitted the Tab to Respondent No.III for repairs but till date the Tab has not been returned till date.  It is in these circumstances, the complainant has prayed for refund of Rs. 7,500/-, the cost of the Tab, compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

            The complainant has contested the present application and has filed his reply to the said application wherein it is submitted by the complainant that the Service Centres of Respondent No.I are part of its business and they clearly fall within the phrase “carries on business” as mentioned in Section 11(2)(c) of the The Consumer Protection Act. Since services were rendered by the Respondent No.I through its Service Centre, the Respondent No.II herein, at Delhi, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.

             Heard the parties and perused the record.

             On an indepth perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the Tab in question was purchased from Ghaziabad.  It is alleged by the Respondent No.I that since the Tab in question was purchased from Ghaziabad, the Forum at Ghaziabad shall have jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1567/2012 in the complaint titled Wg. Com. P. Kosalairaman vs. Chief Executive M/s. Whirlpool of India Ltd. & 2 Ors filed on record by the Respondent No.I.  On perusal of the said judgment and its application to the present case we arrive at an inference that the present complaint is squarely covered by the said judgment and the Forum at Ghaziabad would have jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  The objection tendered by the complainant against the said application have no force in view of the judgment of the Wg. Com. P. Kosalairaman (supra).

            Taking the above facts and circumstances into consideration we allow this application and dismiss this complaint with a liberty to the complainant to file the present complaint before the District Forum at Ghaziabad. Complaint be returned to the complainant for presentation before the Forum of having  jurisdiction.

            Copy of the order to be sent to both the parties as per rules.