Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1102/2014

VINAYAK - Complainant(s)

Versus

MICROMAX - Opp.Party(s)

29 Nov 2016

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

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

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.      1102 / 2014

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                 01/12/2014

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                29/11/2016

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          02/12/2016  In matter of

Mr Vinayak Singh adult   

S/o  Sh. Surender Singh Rathod 

R/o  D18/7, 1^st Floor, Old Govind Pura

Delhi 110051 …………...…………………………….……..…………….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1 M/s Spice Communication

Out W1, SCO 81, Sec. 14

Nr Om Sweets

Gurgaon- Haryana 122001

 

2 The Mobile Care 

B 36, Guru Nanak Pura,  opp. V 3 S Mall 

Nr Maharaja Banquet Hall Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092

 

3 Micromax Informatics Ltd. 

90 B, Sec 18

Gurgaon 122015 ……………………………………………..………….Opponents

 

Complainant’s Advocate …………………Jalal Agrawal  

Opponent 1…………………………………….NEMO

Opponent 2&3 Advocate ..………………Advo. Satya Vir Sharma

 

 

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 a Micromax mobile vide EMIE no. 91131402314153 from OP1 for a sum of Rs 11526/-marked as CW1/1. Mobile started giving problem after one month of its purchase as power does not switch off and display broken, so visited authorized service centre OP2, where repair cost was asked to deposit Rs 2260/- and the same was deposited by complainant and he gave his said mobile for repair on dated 13/09/2014 and was told to come after 7 days to collect the phone vide job sheet as marked here CW1/2.

It was stated that even after repeated visit of complainant to OP2, the said mobile was not returned.  When complainant did not get any reply satisfactory about his mobile status, felt harassed and thus he filed this complaint claiming refund of cost of his mobile Rs 11,526/- with compensation Rs 50,000/- for mental and physical harassment. He also claimed Rs 15,000/- as cost of litigation.  

Notices were served. None appeared for OP1 & 2. By track report, notices were served and none were present, so case proceeded Ex Parte. OP3 submitted their written statement.  At this stage, both the parties agreed for mutual settlement under National Lok Adalat which was to be held on 13/08/2016, but settlement could not be arrived between the parties, so, OPs and complainant submitted their evidences on affidavit.

OP 3 moved an application for rejection of complaint on territorial jurisdiction, but the same application was rejected as OP3 had its authorized service centre as OP2 which falls under the jurisdiction of this Forum. More so, amount was received for repair of the said mobile and thus cause of action arisen here.

The case was listed for arguments, but OP did not present on the date of arguments and also on previous dates. Complainant was present. File was perused and order was reserved

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record, it was evident that the complainant had deposited his mobile with OP2 for repair, but did not get the same.  As mobile was not under warranty and complainant had paid for repair, still his mobile was neither repaired nor was returned to complainant.  This clearly amounts deficiency of services by OP2. Thus, complainant has succeeded in proving the deficiency of OP2 who was an authorized service centre of OP3.

We come to the conclusion that this complaint has merit and the same deserve to be allowed with the following order—

1. OP 2 is directed to rectify the defects in the said mobile within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order and shall hand over in good working condition.
2. We also award compensation of Rs 5500/- for mental and physical harassment to be by OP2 for his deficiency in service in not rectifying the defects even after receiving amount for the same. This amount shall include the litigation cost also.   
3. OP3 shall extend the warranty of 6 months from the date of handing over the repaired phone to complainant in writing.
4. If order is not complied in time essence, entire awarded amount shall carry interest of 9% which shall be payable jointly by OP2 and 3, till realized.     

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.

 

Mrs  Harpreet Kaur                                                                                                       (Dr) P N Tiwari

Member                                                                                                                                     Member                                                                                   

                                                         Shri Sukhdev Singh

                                                                       President