DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 1242/2016
D.No.____________________ Dated: _________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
Smt. MANJU JAIN W/o SH. SANJAY JAIN,
R/o H. No.-353, MILANSAR APARTMENT,
SECTOR-14, ROHINI,
DELHI-110085. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. M/s BANSAL TELECOMS,
THROUGH ITS MANAGER,
HAVING ITS SHOP AT: G-2,
RG COMPLEX, COMMUNITY CENTRE,
SECTOR-8, ROHINI, DELHI-110085.
2. M/s BEST SERVICES,
THROUGH ITS MANAGER,
HAVING ITS OFFICE/SHOP AT: C-9/92,
1st FLOOR, SEC.-8, ROHINI, DELHI-110085.
3. M/s MICROMAX,
THROUGH ITS M.D.,
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT:
MICROMAX HOUSE, 90-B, SECTOR-18,
GURUGRAM-122015. … OPPOSITE PARTY (IES)
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 29.11.2016
Date of decision: 16.03.2020
CC No. 1242/2016 Page 1 of 6
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant purchased a mobile handset model Micromax CG-410 on 30.11.2014 vide retail invoice no. 8330 of Rs.2,450/- from OP-1 and after few days of the purchase the mobile handset started giving problem and the mobile handset was not working properly and the power of the mobile handset was not switching on and audio quality was very poor and the warrantee of the said mobile handset was of 12 months. Thereafter, the complainant approached OP-2 i.e. service centre for repair of the said mobile handset on 17.12.2014 and job sheet was prepared by OP-2 and the complainant was told by OP-2 that the repair of the said mobile handset will take some time. After 2-3 months the complainant contacted OP-2 to know about the repair of her mobile handset and the complainant was told that repair will take another 4-5 months and the complainant repeatedly enquired about the repair of the mobile handset and every time the complainant was told that repair will take some more time. In June-2016, OP-3 contacted the complainant and intimated the complainant that the mobile handset cannot be repaired and OP-2 offered the complainant some other old and used phone as replacement/in lieu of the said mobile
CC No. 1242/2016 Page 2 of 6
handset which the complainant refused, since the complainant was being harassed continuously for long time and the complainant was facing problem due to non-availability of the mobile handset. The complainant further alleged that the complainant purchased the new mobile handset hence the complainant denied old and used mobile handset being offered by OP-3 and the complainant asked OP-3 to refund the invoice amount of the said mobile handset, OP-3 told the complainant that they will enquire about it and will seek permission from higher officials to do so, however, OPs neither repaired nor refunded the invoice amount of the said mobile handset to the complainant. 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 praying for direction to OPs to pay Rs.2,450/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from 30.11.2014 till date as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment and has also sought cost of litigation.
3. Only OP-3 has been contesting the case and filed its written statement whereas OP-1 & OP-2 did not choose to contest the case despite service of notice sent through speed post which was delivered and OP-1 & OP-2 were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 31.05.2017.
CC No. 1242/2016 Page 3 of 6
4. In its written statement OP-3 submitted that the authorized service center repaired the mobile handset of the complainant and intimated to the complainant over phone about the repair of the handset but the complainant did not collect the handset from the authorized service center but the complainant instead of collecting the handset filed the complaint on false grounds just to harass OP-3 and to extract money from OP-3.
5. Complainant filed replication and denied the contentions of OP-3.
6. In order to prove her case, the complainant filed her affidavit in evidence and has also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of retail invoice dated 30.11.2014 regarding purchase of the mobile handset Micromax CG-410 of Rs.2,450/- issued by OP-1, copy of warrantee statement issued by OP-3 and copy of job sheet dated 17.12.2014 issued by OP-2.
7. OP-3 did not file any affidavit in evidence of any of its officer but OP-3 has filed written arguments.
8. This Forum has considered the case of the complainant and OP-3 in the light of evidence of the parties 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-3 has failed to prove the defence that after removal of the defect in the mobile handset by the authorized service center the complainant was informed to collect the mobile
CC No. 1242/2016 Page 4 of 6
handset. OP-3 has also failed to specifically disclosed the date when the authorized service center informed the complainant on telephone about repair of the mobile handset and to collect the same. Moreover, during the proceedings of the present case, OP-3 has failed to produce the repaired mobile handset. It clearly shows that OP-3 has taken the defence only for the sake of defence but has not been able to prove the defence. In case the mobile handset has been repaired by authorized service center and defect removed, then OP-2 ought to have contested the case and also ought to have produced the mobile handset before the Forum. But OPs have failed to prove the fact that the mobile handset has been repaired. Accordingly, OP-2 & OP-3 are held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
9. Accordingly, OP-2 & OP-3 jointly or severally are directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,450/- being the price of the mobile handset on return of accessories as the mobile handset is lying with OP-2.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,500/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant which includes litigation cost.
10. The above amount shall be paid by OP-2 & OP-3 jointly or severally to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order failing which OP-2 & OP-3 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving
CC No. 1242/2016 Page 5 of 6
of this order till the date of payment. If OP-2 & OP-3 fail to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. 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 16th day of March, 2020.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 1242/2016 Page 6 of 6
UPLOADED BY : SATYENDRA JEET
