DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 898/2016
D.No.____________________ Dated: _________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ms. ALKA ASWAL W/o SH. NEERAJ ASWAL,
R/o H. No.C-2/190, SEC.-17,
ROHINI,DELHI-110089.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. MICROMAX,
MICROMAX HOUSE,
697, UDYOG VIHAR, PH-V,
GURGAON-122022 (HARYANA).
2. MICROMAX SERVICE CENTER,
I-6/85, SEC.16, ROHINI,
DELHI-110089. … OPPOSITE PARTY (IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 06.09.2016 Date of decision: 01.02.2019
MS. USHA KHANNA, 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. Canvas 6 (E-485) for Rs.14,000/- on 18.06.2016 from Smart Phone
CC No.898/2016 Page 1 of 5
Gallery, H-4/38, Shop No.1, Sec.16, Rohini, Delhi vide invoice no.464 dated 18.06.2016. That on the next day (night) of purchase of the mobile handset only lining started appearing on the screen of the mobile handset. The complainant went to OP-2 on 20.06.2016 for repair and OP-2 assured the complainant that the problem would be rectified on downloading of fresh software. The complainant waited for about 2 hours and thereafter OP-2 informed the complainant that the mobile handset shall be sent to the company for repair and will be returned after 10-15 days and prepared job sheet no. NO31848-0616-23966033. The complainant further alleged that she received a message on 02.07.2016 that the mobile handset shall be returned after repair within 21 days and the complainant on 09.07.2016, 15.07.2016, 19.07.2016, 22.07.2016 & 29.07.2016 received the same message. The complainant further alleged that on contacting customer care of OP at toll free no. 18605008266 it was informed that the mobile handset shall be returned within 21 days. The complainant sent a communication through e-mail to the company asking for a new mobile handset and after repeated e-mails company gave a new mobile handset on 08.08.2016 but the mobile handset had the same lining problem. The complainant again took the mobile handset to the service center and was deposited on 13.08.2016 with
CC No.898/2016 Page 2 of 5
the service center vide a new job sheet no. NO31848-0816-24919453 and she received the message on 19.08.2016 that the mobile handset will be returned within 10 days and again received the message that the mobile handset shall be returned on 10 days and again on 21 days. 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 OPs with a prayer for refund of the price of the mobile handset and compensation.
3. Only OP-1 has been contesting the case and has filed written statement wherein OP-1 submitted that OP-1 never denied to provide after sale services to the complainant under the terms of warrantee. OP-1 further submitted that the authorized service centre repaired the mobile handset and intimated to the complainant to collect the mobile 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.
4. Subsequently, none for OPs appeared and both the OPs were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11.01.2018.
5. In order to prove hercase the complainant filed her affidavit in evidence and has also filed written arguments. The complainant
CC No.898/2016 Page 3 of 5
also placed on record copy of retail invoice dated 18.06.2016 regarding purchase of the mobile handset Micromax model Canvas E-485 bearing IMEI nos. 911514050379674 & 911514050379682 of Rs.14,000/-, copies of job sheets dated 08.08.2016 &13.08.2016 having same defect.
6. On the other hand, OP-1 did not file any affidavit of any official of OP-1 in evidence despite giving last opportunity. However, OP-1 also filed written submissions.
7. 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 the service center that mobile handset has been repaired and on which date the complainant was asked to collect the repaired mobile handset. It seems that OP-1 has taken a bogus and false defence which cannot be believed. Accordingly, OP-1is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
8. Accordingly, OP-1 is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.14,000/- being the price of the mobile handset on return of accessories, original invoice and job sheets.
CC No.898/2016 Page 4 of 5
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant whichincludes litigation cost.
9. The above amount shall be paid byOP-1 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order failing which OP-1 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving of this order till the date of payment. If OP-1 fails 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.
10. 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 1st day of February, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.898/2016 Page 5 of 5
