Delhi

East Delhi

CC/204/2015

GAUTAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOBILE CARE - Opp.Party(s)

27 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 204/15

 

Shri Gautam Arun Kumar

S/o Shri Megh Singh

Chamber No. E-412

Karkardooma Court

Shahdara, Delhi – 110 032                                                         ….Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s. The Mobile Care (Delhi)

Micromax Authorised Service Centre

Through its Principal Officer/Chairman/Director

B-36, Guru Nanak Pura, Opp. V3S Mall

Near Maharaja Banquet Hall

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092

 

2. Micromax House

Through its Principal Officer/Chairman/Director

90-B, Sector-18

Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 015

 

3. Vijay Sales

Through its Proprietor

A-18, Swasthya Vihar

Vikas Marg, Delhi – 110 092                                                         ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 15.04.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 27.01.2017

Judgment Passed on: 30.01.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Gautam Arun Kumar against The Mobile Care (OP-1), Micromax House, the manufacturer (OP-2) and Vijay Sales, the retailer (OP-3), praying for directions to OP for refund of cost of the mobile phone or to replace the defective handset,                 Rs. 70,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 11,000/- as cost of litigation. 

2.        Facts in brief are that on 07.09.2014, the complainant had purchased one mobile phone, Micromax A120, colour white, with IMEI no. 911367107064355 vide invoice no. 75-DVM09-1451ADN75 for        Rs. 9,300/-.  After 15 days of purchase, the complainant started facing problem with the battery stand by time. 

            On 29.10.2014, the complainant visited OP-1 to get the phone serviced, which was returned after a week with assurance that the defect of battery drainage had been removed.  The problem persisted even after the battery was changed.  Again, on 02.12.2014, job sheet no. 30666-1214-13694555 was issued by OP-1, stating that the said handset would be repaired in the factory and would take 15 days time.  Even after a lapse of 1 month, the complainant was not handed over the handset.  On 31.12.2014, the complainant received his handset in a very bad condition, where the power button was not working, back cover had been replaced.  Despite several visits, the handset remained unrepaired.  Another job sheet bearing no. 30666-0115-14286604 dated 03.01.2015 was issued for repairs. 

            Legal notice dated 21.01.2015 was served upon OPs which was not replied.  After the service of notice, the complainant was contacted by OP-1, where he was requested to submit his handset again, accordingly, the complainant was issued job sheet no. 30666-0215-15048889 dated 14.02.2015 was issued.  Feeling aggrieved by the deficiency-in-services of the OPs the complainant has invoked the jurisdictions of this forum. 

            Retail invoice dated 07.09.2014, job sheet no. N030666-1214-13694555 dated 02.12.2014, job sheet no. N030666-0115-14236604 dated 03.01.2015, emails and legal notice are annexed with the complaint.

3.        OPs were served with the notice of the complaint, but no reply was filed on their behalf, finally they were proceeded ex-parte.

4.        The complainant filed his ex-parte evidence, where he examined himself and deposed on oath the contents of the complaint.

5.        We have heard the arguments on behalf of the Ld. Counsel of the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  As, none has appeared on behalf of OPs despite service, the allegations of the complainant have remained unrebutted.  The complainant has annexed the job sheets, which substantiate his allegations.  The handset is lying with OP-1, who has failed to hand over the repaired handset to complainant despite several visits and emails.  If a customer has to approach the service centre repeatedly within one year of purchase and OP, failing to remove the defects it tantamount to deficiency in services and selling defective handset to the complainant.

            Thus, we direct OP-2 to refund the cost of the said handset alongwith 9% interest from the date of filing of complaint till realization.  We also direct OP-1 and OP-2 to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony.  They shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount.  Order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of order.      

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

     

      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President