DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 1295/2014
D.No._______________ Dated:________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
MOHD. ZAKI QURESHI S/oLATE MOHD. KAMIL,
R/o T-255, IDGAH ROAD, SADAR BAZAR,
DELHI-110006.
ALSO AT: T-252, IDGAH ROAD,
SADAR BAZAR, DELHI-110006. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. M/s ROYAL SERVICES LTD.,
A UNIT OF MICROMAX INFO LTD.,
MICROMAX AUTHORIZED SERVICE CENTER,
S E-18, SINGLE PUR EXT., NEAR DT CITY CENTRE MALL,
OPP.-SBI BANK, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
2. M/s YEH BAZAR.COM,
P. No.-540, 2nd FLOOR, MORIJA HOUSE,
MISHRA RAJA JI KA RASTA, INDIRA BAZAR,
JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302201.
3. MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD.,
MICROMAX HOUSE,
90 B, SECTOR-18,
GURGAON-122015. (HARYANA).… OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM :SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 30.10.2014
Date of decision: 04.06.2018
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby
CC No. 1295/2014 Page 1 of 5
alleging thatthe complainant purchased a mobile handset model Micromax Juice A 177 Black for a sum of Rs.7,774/- vide invoice no. AF855F/14-15/7301 dated 16.04.2014 from OP-2. The complainant further alleged that the complainant was put to much harassment as the mobile handset was suffering from a manufacturing defect and the mobile handset had the complaint of sound and the complainant visited the authorized service centre i.e. OP-1 for the same on various dates but the mobile handset could not be rectified on approaching OP-1. The complainant further alleged that the complainant is unhappy with the service meted out to him and he stands on very firm legal ground in claiming around Rs.80,000/- and the apathetic and apparently deceitful attitude of OP reflects its indifference to the complainant’s plight.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to apologize for all the inconvenience caused to the complainant as well as to make up for the mistake by refunding the cost of the mobile handset. The complainant has also sought compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing physical strain and mental agony and has also sought Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost.
3. None for OP-1 & OP-3 have appeared on 12.01.2015 & 30.03.2015, despite service of notice on 12.01.2015 and OP-1 & OP-3 have been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 30.03.2015.
4. However subsequently, OP-3 filed written statement on 24.11.2015
CC No. 1295/2014 Page 2 of 5
and in its written statement stated that the complaint is absolutely false, frivolous, misconceived and is not maintainable andis liable to be dismissed and there is no deficiencyin service on the part of OP-3. OP-3 further submitted that the complainant purchased the mobile handset on 16.04.2014 and deposited the same with OP-1 i.e. authorized service centre on 23.07.2014 for ‘receiver & mike not working’ and the same was repaired by OP-1 ad the facts intimated to the complainant but the complainant never turned up to collect the mobile handset and the fact was intimated to the complainant over mobile handset but the complainant instated of collecting mobile handset filed the present false, frivolous & baseless complaint and OP never denied to provide its after sale services as assured under the terms of the warrantee and still ready to provide its after sale services as assured under the terms of the warrantee.
5. The complainant filed replicationwhich is unsigned and denied the version of OP-3.
6. In order to prove hiscase the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. Thecomplainant also placed on record copy of retail invoice no. AF855F/14-15/7301 dated 16.04.2014 issued by OP-2, copy of job sheet dated 23.07.2014, copies of e-mail communications between the complainant and OPs 23.08.2014, 26.08.2014, 29.08.2014, 30.08.2014, 08.09.2014, 14.09.2014, 16.09.2014, 17.09.2014 &
CC No. 1295/2014 Page 3 of 5
18.09.2014 & copy of legal notice sent by the complainant OPs through Regd. Post/Dasti alongwith postal receipts and tracking report.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant as well as OPs in the light of evidence and documents placed on record. It is revealed that the complainant purchased a mobile handset for Rs.7,774/-. The case of the complainant has remained consistentand undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Moreover, it appears thateven after receiving notice of this case from this forum, the OP-1 & OP-3 have kept mum and have not bothered to answer the case of the complainant. It seems that OPs have no defence at all in their favour.
8. On perusal of the record, we find that the complainant made complaint of his mobile to the service enter of OP-2 repeatedly within warranty period. Though, OP-2 has tried to rectify the defect but the problem could not be resolved. It was the duty of the OPs to rectify the defect once for all or to replace the product. Frequent recurring of the defect in the mobile clearly shows that there is some inherent manufacturing defect in the mobile which OPs have failed to rectify. A customer/consumer is not expected to file complaints frequently in respect of new product purchased. It is expected that the new product purchased is free from all sorts of
CC No. 1295/2014 Page 4 of 5
defect in the product. Accordingly, OP-3 being the manufacturer of the productisheld guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
9. Thus, holding guilty for the same, we direct OP-3 to:
i) To refund to the complainant the cost of the mobile handset i.e. Rs.7,774/- on return of the original bill/invoice by the complainant.
ii) To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant which includes cost of litigation.
10. The above amount shall be paid by OP-3 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-3 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP-3 fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the C.P. 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 4thday of June, 2018.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 1295/2014 Page 5 of 5
