DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. 399/2015
Date of Institution 29/05/2015
Order Reserved on 27/09/2016
Date of Order - 29/09/2016
In matter of
Mr.Ravi Agarwal, adult
S/o- Sh. Bal Kishan Agarwal
R/o-B2/365, Yamuna Vihar
Delhi 110053 …………...…………………………….……..…………….Complainant
Vs
1-M/s The Mobile Care –Delhi
Shop-B-36, Guru Nanak pura
Opp. V3S Mall , Nr Maharaja Banquet Hall
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi -110092
2-The Micro max Mobiles
Micromax House,
90B, Sec 18, Gurgaon-122015…………………………………………Opponents
Complainant’s Advocate………………………..Anuj Kapoor
Opponent 1…………………………………………..Nemo
Opponent 2…………………………………………..Advo. Satya Vir Sharma &
Mohd Asad Shakeel-Legal Manager
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 A116from Digital care, C-3, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi on 23/06/2013 for a sum of Rs 13,195. After some time it was not working properly, so complainant took the said mobile to OP1, who were the authorized customer care of OP2and he deposited the said mobile on 20/06/2014 for repairing. It was promised to return the mobile after repair after one week. Job card was also prepared. Complainant submitted that the said mobile was in warranty.
Complainant submitted that his mobile was not delivered as per time give to him, so, he called OP2, who told to send email details so that OP2 could give reply. But even after sending number of emails, complainant did not get the reply.
He further state that he was a LIC agent and his phone had many vital data and his customer’s numbers were in the mobile data, as OP1 did not return his mobile, thereby his business suffered great loss.
Thus, complainant stated that OPs services were negligent and liable to be prosecuted and claimed for replacement of his phone or amount paid for a sum of Rs 13,195/ be refunded with 24% interest from 20/06/2014 from the date of handing of mobile to OP1. He also claimed a sum of Rs 75,000/- as harassment and mental agony and litigation charges a sum of Rs 10,000/-.
Notices were served. OP1 did not put up their appearance nor submitted written statement or evidence. OP2 appeared but did not submit their written statement. Later evidence by way of affidavit was submitted. OP2 stated that the said mobile was purchased by the complainant on 23/06/2013 and its warranty was for one year ie up to 22/06/2014. OP2 stated that the said mobile was deposited for repair on 20/06/2014 with OP1, under warranty. There was no deficiency in services by OP1. It was stated that complainant used his mobile for about one year and had no defect or problem.
After the repair of mobile, complainant was intimated to collect the said mobile, but he did not collect but filed this complaint.
Hence, there was no deficiency either by OP1 or OP2, so the complaint be dismissed. Complainant and OP 1 did not file their evidence on affidavit till the date of arguments.
Arguments were heard and order was reserved.
We had gone through all the facts and evidence of OP2. The complainant had submitted zerox of invoice dated 23/06/2013 and one job card dated 20/06/2014. By seeing the job card, it was evident that complainant had submitted his mobile and the executive of OP1 had endorsed for the delivery of said mobile within two days till 7pm and signed on dated 07/08/2014. The complainant had not mentioned any facts about receiving of his mobile from OP1 on the date and time mentioned on job card. But it was evident that the said mobile was submitted by complainant to OP1 just two days before existing warranty period.
So, the mobile had problem in warranty period and was with OP1, but also not collected by the complainant after repair. There was no evidence from OP1 that they ever informed complainant to collect his mobile after stated date mentioned on job card (07/08/2014).
Hence, we come to the conclusion that the OP1 and complainant were at fault in performing their duties, but considering the principle of natural justice, we pass the following order-
This complaint is allowed and OP1 is directed to hand over the said mobile after repairing and hand over to complainant, in good working condition, within 30 days from the receiving of this order. OP2 shall extend one year warranty on the said mobile from the date of receiving by complainant.
We also award a compensation of a sum of Rs 2500/- which will include harassment and litigation charges and shall be paid by OPs jointly. There shall be no other award and cost.
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
