DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 29 of 2.2.2017

                                      Decided on:          6.8.2021

Ramesh Kumar Mehta aged about 41 years, son of late Sh.Shiv Sharan Dass Mehta, resident of 24-G, Majithia Enclave, Near Park No.2, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Mobile Tech Micromax Check Point B-1, Ranjit Plaza Adjoining Hotal Jiwan Plaza Bhupindra Road, Patiala through its Manager.
2. Bajaj Telecom Gau Shala Mour, Sheran Wala Gate, Patiala through its Proprietor.
3. Micromax Informatics Ltd., Micromax House 90B, Sector 18, Gurgaon 122015 through its Managing Director.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.C.S.Mittal,counsel for the complainant.

                                      Sh.Vipin Sharma, counsel for OPs No.1&3.

                                      Opposite party No.2 ex-parte.                                     

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Ramesh Kumar Mehta (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Mobile Tech Micromax and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. The brief facts of the case  are that on 6.3.2016 complainant purchased a mobile make Micromax Canvas Amaze, black colour, manufactured by OP No.3, from OP No.2 for Rs.7700/- with the warranty of one year and OP No.1 is the service centre of the Micromax.
3. It is averred that the mobile in question started giving problem in hardware regarding audio mike and  OP No.1  gave the reason of water damage and also gave the estimate of Rs.850/- on 28.7.2016 vide job order No.1449 and on 9.8.2016 the OP No.1 repaired the mobile phone and charged Rs.850/-.It is further averred that again in the month of October,2016 the said mobile phone started giving problems regarding display touch screen regarding which the remarks were given as liquid logged and estimate of Rs.2485/-was given by OP No.1.It is averred that the complainant requested the OP to repair the mobile phone free of costs as the same was within warranty period but the OP did not pay any heed. The complainant got sent legal notice dated 29.11.2016 to the OPs with the request to pay the amount of Rs.7700/- with Rs.3300/-as costs of the notice but all in vain. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to replace the mobile in question with new one or in the alternative pay Rs.7750/- cost of the mobile phone; Rs.3300/- costs of legal notice and Rs.10,000/-as costs of complaint.
4. Notice of the complaint was duly given to the OPs. OPs No.1&3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint while none appeared on behalf of OP No.2 despite service of notice and was accordingly proceeded against exparte vide order dated 5.5.2017.
5. In the reply filed by OPs No.1&3 preliminary objections have been raised to the effect that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is bad for mis joinder of parties; that no cause of action has accrued to the complainant and has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant  has not come to the Forum with clean hands and the complaint is false and frivolous.
6. On merits, it is mentioned that the service centre proceeds with the repair of the mobile phone only after intimating the customer about the nature of services required to be rendered. It is pleaded that the complainant was informed that the product is damaged due to water logging and liquid damage, which are not covered under the warranty. Thereafter the OPs denied the averments and have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C7 and closed the evidence.
8. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs No.1&3 has tendered in evidence warranty card Ex.OP1 and has closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
10. The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone make Micromax from the OP on 6.3.2016 for Rs.7700/- and warranty of one year was given. The ld. counsel further argued that mobile started giving problems in its hardware and the OP wrongly mentioned water damage and gave estimate of Rs.850/- and Rs.850/-was paid by the complainant. The ld. counsel further argued that in the month of October/2016 the mobile again started giving problems and it was liquid logged and Rs.2485/-was demanded. It was a wrong demand so the complaint be allowed and the mobile be got replaced.
11. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs No.1&3 has argued that complainant is estopped from his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. The ld. counsel further argued that it was water damaged and vide job card of 28.7.2016 Rs.850/- was prepared. The ld. counsel further argued that it was again liquid damaged and there was no warranty for liquid damaged and estimate of Rs.2485/-prepared. So the complaint be dismissed.
12. To prove this complaint, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per the complaint.Ex.C1 is the receipt vide which the mobile was purchased on 6.3.2016 from Bajaj Telecom, for Rs.7700/-, Ex.C3 is the customer job card of Micromax wherein Rs.850/-was paid and it was mentioned that it was water damaged.Ex.C3 is also the receipt of Micromax service center of 9.8.2016 in which it was mentioned ‘water damaged warranty void’ and amount of Rs.850/-was paid. So, it is clear vide Exs.C2 and C3 which were job cards of Micromax customer care in the name of Ramesh Mehta that the mobile was water damaged and there is no warranty and amount  was paid. So it is clear that the complainant has himself admitted that due to water damage he made the payment  otherwise he should not have paid the amount of Rs.850/-.There is another report of Micromax service center Ex.C4  of 10.10.2016 in which it is mentioned that it was liquid logged.Ex.C5 is the legal notice,Exs.C6 and C7 are postal receipts.
13. No evidence has been lead by the OPs except the warranty card Ex.OP1, in which it was mentioned that where the mobile is spoiled of liquid or water damage, the warranty cover is not made.
14. So it is clear that Ramesh Kumar, complainant made the payment of Rs.850/- to the Micromax Service Center when it is clearly mentioned in Exs.C2 and C3 that it was water damaged. In the another document of Micromax,Ex.C4, it is mentioned that damage due to liquid logged. So as per warranty policy both theses defects are not covered under the warranty.
15. So due to our above discussion, there is no force in the complaint and the complainant  himself is defaulter as the mobile in question stopped working due to water damaged and liquid logged. So the complaint is dismissed. Parties are to bear their own costs.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:6.8.2021         

                             Vinod Kumar Gulati             Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                                    Member                                       President