Delhi

New Delhi

CC/840/2015

Amit Arya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Microsoft Corporation ( India ) Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Nov 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

 NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./840/2015                         Dated:

In the matter of:

 

SH. AMIT ARYA

R/o 343,Gali No. 40,

Vipin Garden Extn.,

Uttam Nagar,

New Delhi-110059

……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

807, New Delhi House, Barkhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001

 

       .... OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

MEMBER : NIPUR CHANDNA

ORDER

Complainant purchased Microsoft 540 mobile vide invoice No. 52/5154 dated 29.05.2015 from Shradha Communication.

It is alleged by the complainant that from the day of purchase he was facing battery issue, and as such he submitted his alleged mobile phone to OP’s authorized service centre M/S S.S. Enterprise at Dwarka Mor. Vide Job Sheet No. 936433527/150817/09. It is further alleged by the complainant that after almost 2 months later he received his swapped handset from service centre.

       But, very soon the battery issue started and this time the battery did not charge fully, but up to 79% to 80% and drains off. When the complainant visited again to Dwarka Mor Service Centre, he came to know that the service centre has been officially closed on 30.09.2015 and as such he visited Tilak Nagar Service Centre of Op co. The Service Engineer of Tilak Nagar Service Centre informed him that the alleged mobile phone is not having its original battery and the same is changed by the previous Service Centre while handling the phone.

Complainant lodged various complaints regarding the alleged mobile phone, with the customer care centre of OP but all in vain, complainant also visited the address printed on the mobile phone back, but the office was shifted from there also. Complainant, therefore, approached this forum for the redressal of his grievance.

Notice of the complaint was sent to the OP through post and dasti as well. Dasti notice of the complaint was received by one Saurabh on 3.2.16 on behalf of OP. Despite receiving notice none appeared on behalf of OP, hence it was ordered to be proceeded with ex-parte.

       Complainant filed his ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has corroborated the contents of his complaint.

Complainant has placed on record the copy of bill, copy of service job sheet and copy of e-mails sent to the OP in support of his case.

       We have carefully gone through the documents and annexures filed by complainant. Complainant had purchased the aforesaid mobile phone on 29.05.15, he visited the service centre on 17.08.2015 with the problem that battery drain without usage and till date he is suffering from the same problem.

       From the above discussion, it is clear that the mobile sold to complainant suffered from battery defect, and the same is not cured by the service center of OP even after keeping it for about 2 months. This act of OP amounts to deficiency in service.

In R. Sachdeva v/s ICICI Bank, FA 762/06 decided on 29.11.2006 the Hon’ble State Commission held:-

       “what is the use of such good or article if it loses its utility after a period of one month from its purchase. The object of The Consumer Protection Act, is to safeguard the interest of the Consumer against the unscrupulous manufacturers or traders for selling substandard or defective goods.”

       In another case titled “Col. Ravinder Pal Brar v/s Asian Motors, FA 73/06 decided on 28.09.2007 the Hon’ble State Commission held:-

“The dispute between the Consumer and the service providers and trader should be ended once for all by calling upon the trader and manufacturer to refund the cost of goods with adequate compensation as the possibility of the new goods also being defective and not being up to the satisfaction of the consumer cannot be ruled out and in that case partied will be relegated to square one and will suffer another bout of litigation.”

In view of the above judgment we direct OP as under:-

1. Refund to the complainant sum of Rs. 9,333/- (cost of mobile).
2. Pay to the complainant sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and mental agony suffered by him which will also include cost of litigation.

 

The order shall be complied by the OP within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order. If the said amount is not paid by the OP within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the same shall be recovered by the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this order till recovery of the said amount of Rs. 14,333/-. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.

 

        File be consigned to record room.

 

       Pronounced in open Forum on _______________.

 

 

(S K SARVARIA)

 PRESIDENT

 

 

                          (H M VYAS)                                                    (NIPUR CHANDNA)

                              MEMBER                                                          MEMBER