Delhi

North West

CC/1471/2015

DEEPAK SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S ROYAL SERVICES - Opp.Party(s)

20 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST

       GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.

CC No: 1471/2015

D.No.__________________         Date: ________________

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

DEEPAK SHARMA S/o SH. HARISH SHARMA,

R/o WZ-830, RISHI NAGAR, RANI BAGH,

DELHI-110034.              … COMPLAINANT

 

Versus

 

1.M/s ROYAL SERVICES,

    (THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER),

3425, MAHENDRA PARK, 

    RANI BAGH, DELHI-110034.

 

2. MICROMAX HOUSE,

    (THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER),

    HEAD OFFICE OF MICROMAX MOBILES,

90B, SECTOR-18, GURGAON,

    HARYANA-122015.… OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)

 

 

CORAM :SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

                SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER

      MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER

                                                  Date of Institution: 16.11.2015

                                               Date of decision:20.11.2017

 

SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER

ORDER

1.       The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby

CC No. 1471/2015                                                                       Page 1 of 6

          alleging that the complainant has seen one advertisement regarding mobile of Micromax Unite 2 A106 colour Mystic Grey with one year warrantee which is promoted by snapdeals.com in TV & internetat a price of Rs.6,790/- and the complainant ordered the same on 03.10.2014 by phone no. 9868464603 bearing order no. 2970833346 and same was dispatched and delivered within 4-5 days via XPRESSBEES courier vide dispatch doc. No. 59251780617 at the home of the complainant for which the complainant paid Rs.6,790/- in cash. The complainant further alleged that the complainant has given OP-1 the mobile phone bearing IMEI no. 911391304897367 & 911391305397862 as some technical problem was being faced by the complainant and the mobile got dead around second week of August-2015 and OP-1 received mobile as dead in condition and issued one job sheet bearing docket no. N031659-0815-18533839 and gave assurance to rectify the problem of the mobile or replace it as it was in warrantee and the complainant approached and complained to OP-2 after about 1 month on 14.09.2015 through Micromax’s registered e-mail address i.e.

CC No. 1471/2015                                                                       Page 2 of 6

          registered e-mail address and asked about the status of the mobile and again in reply the OP-2 said that the problem is being resolved on priority basis and the complainant received a SMS from OP-2 in the 2^nd week of October-2015 stating that the mobile has been repaired. On 09.10.2015, the complainant reached office of OP-1 and asked the mobile but OP-1 showed a mobile which was totally damaged and scratched on all overbody and screen and inside the body also the IMEI number’s tag was also not affixed and the complainant refused to receive the mobile due to the worst condition and after the above incident OP-1 again issued new docket no. 31659-1015-19645211 on 09.10.2015 the problem 4901 display segments missing and again submitted the mobile. On 16.10.2015, the complainant again received a call from OP-1 on complainant’s mobile no. 9868464603 and OP-1 stated that the mobile has been repaired but again when the complainant reached the address of OP-1 the mobile which was shown to the complainant was the same damaged & scratched on screen and on the body and back side too which was shown last time when the complainant visited OP-1 and the mobile in question is still lying with OP-1. The complainant further alleged that the complainant sent a legal notice dated 17.10.2015 to the OPs through his counsel for redressing his problems and the notice was received by the OPs

CC No. 1471/2015                                                                       Page 3 of 6

          but till now no reply. The complainant further alleged that the complainant has suffered a loss and there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

2.       On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to return the amount paid by the complainant with interest @ 36% p.a. or to return the mobile phone in question in good condition as it was earlieras well as compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing him mental pain, agony and harassment and has also sought legal cost.

3.       Notices to OPs were issued through speed post for appearance on 23.12.2015 and the notices to OP-1 & OP-2 were served on 01.12.2015 as per track reports. But none for the OPs appeared on 23.12.2015, 18.02.2016 & 05.04.2016 and as such OPs have been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 05.04.2016.

4.       In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant has also placed on record copy of retail invoice no. S01F84/14-15/221 dated 03.10.2014 issued by Supersound Electronics Pvt. Ltd., copy of job sheet no. 31659-1015-19645211 dated 09.10.2015, copies of e-mail communication and copy of voter I-Card.

5.       This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant.

CC No. 1471/2015                                                                       Page 4 of 6

          The case of the complainant has remainedconsistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Moreover, it appears that even after receiving notice ofthis case from this forum, the OPs have kept mum and have not bothered to answer the case of the complainant. It seems that they have no defence at all.

6.       On perusal of the record, we find that the complainant made complaint of his mobile handset to OP-1 within warranty period. Though OP-1 had tried to rectify the defect which has occurred in the mobile handset but could not be resolved. It was the duty of the OPs to rectify thedefect once for all or to replace the product. 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 defect in the product. Accordingly, OPsare held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

7.       Accordingly, OP-1 & OP-2 jointly or severally are directed as under:

i)        To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.6,970/- being the cost of the mobile handset.

ii)       To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.8,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and  harassment caused to the complainant which includes cost of litigation.

CC No. 1471/2015                                                                       Page 5 of 6

8.       The above amount shall be paid by the OP-1 & OP-2 jointly or severally to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order failing which OP-1 & OP-2 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% perannum from the date of receiving of this order till the date of payment. If OP-1 & OP-2 fail to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order, thecomplainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 9.      Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of csost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on this 20^thday of November, 2017.

 

 

BARIQ AHMED                            USHA KHANNA  M.K. GUPTA

(MEMBER)                            (MEMBER)                   (PRESIDENT)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CC No. 1471/2015                                                                       Page 6 of 6