DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 16/2017
D.No._______________________ Dated: __________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
JAGRAM BHARDWAJ,
S/o SH. TARA CHAND BHARDWAJ,
R/o B-1/3A, BUDH VIHAR, PHASE-I,
DELHI-110086.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. M/s VENUS ENTERPRISES,
I-6/85, G.F., SEC.-16, ROHINI,
DELHI-110089.
2. MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD.,
MICROMAX HOUSE, 90-B, SECTOR-18,
GURUGRAM-122015 (HARYANA).
3. WS RETAIL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,
KHASRA No.435, ROAD No.04,
LAL DORA EXT. MAHIPALPUR,
DELHI-110037. … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 23.12.2016
Date of decision:13.06.2019
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the son of the complainant booked a mobile handset
CC No. 16/2017 Page 1 of 7
model Micromax Canvas Xpress 2 on online through Flipkart on 31.03.2016 and paid Rs.6,199/- vide order ID: OD405627913981622 000, tax invoice no. # DEL20160400003542 dated 31.03.2016 and the receipt for purchasing the mobile handset was given by OP-3. The complainant further alleged that the mobile handset started malfunctioning as the MIC of the mobile handset not working properly and voice in call conversation was not audible to listener on the other side. Thereafter, the complainant went to authorized service center of OP-2 for rectifying the defect, the official of OP-2 told the complainant that the mobile handset has been damaged by water and the warrantee of the mobile handset has been lapsed and when the complainant told him that the mobile handset never encountered with a single drop of water and the complainant took absolute due care of the mobile handset to which official replied that sometimes water from Human Ear may be drained in the mobile handset. The complainant further alleged that when the complainant enquired whether the statement was jokingly made by him to which he replied that he stick to his words and will not rectify the defect of the mobile handset and the complainant left with no other remedy available except to file a complaint petition to get redressal of his grievance. The complainant further alleged that the mobile handset is in warrantee period till 30.03.2017 also and the complainant
CC No. 16/2017 Page 2 of 7
accordingly alleged that 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 the OPs to replace the mobile handset with new one as well as compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing him mental agony and harassment and has also sought litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.
3. Notices were issued to OP-1 & OP-2 through speed post for appearance on 07.03.2017 and the notice was delivered to OP-1 on 19.01.2017 as per track report and none has appeared on behalf of OP-1 and as such OP-1 has been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 07.03.2017.
4. OP-2 has been contesting the case and has filed written statement wherein OP-2 submitted that the case is not maintainable and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and the case is liable to be dismissed. OP-2 further submitted that OP-2 never denied to provide its after sale services to the complainant as assured under the terms of warrantee and still ready to provide the same subject to the terms of the warrantee. OP-2 further submitted that the bill and job sheet filed alongwith the present complaint are in the name of Sumit Kumar, the complainant has not disclosed how he is the complainant in the present complaint and without disclosing the fact the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. OP-2 further
CC No. 16/2017 Page 3 of 7
submitted that the complainant also not disclosed the specific defect in the mobile handset and also the cause of defect, whether the defect in the mobile handset is due to liquid/physical damaged and as per the complainant he purchased the mobile handset on 01.04.2016 and deposited the mobile handset with OP on 19.12.2016 and OP received the mobile handset “out of warrantee” and the complainant not willing to pay the amount and collected the mobile handset without repair and filed the present false frivolous & baseless complaint, the complainant concealed the material facts and also not disclosed in his complaint that the mobile handset having physically damaged. OP-2 further submitted that the limited warrantee document is a part of the user manual and is inserted in every package of a cellular phone by OP and is caveat to the buyer and OP relies upon the same and it clearly shows provides the mobile handset will be repaired “free of charges” by OP if it is covered under warrantee and further replacement as per the limited warrantee terms is limited only to those cases where repair is not possible and or where there is a genuine problem of repeated repairs of the same problem. OP-2 further submitted that the complainant visited the authorized service center of OP on 19.12.2016 and after inspection the mobile handset found liquid/physically damaged and the authorized service center demanded repair charges from the complainant but he refused to
CC No. 16/2017 Page 4 of 7
pay the charges and collected his mobile handset without repair.
5. The complainant filed replication and denied the contentions of OP-2.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of retail invoice/Order ID no. OD40562791 3981622000- #DEL20160400003542 dated 31.03.2016 for purchase of mobile handset for a total value of Rs.6,199/- issued by OP-3 and copy of job sheet dated 19.12.2016 issued by authorized service center of OP-2. In his evidence the complainant stated that he has been using the mobile handset as the same was gifted to him by his son.
7. On the other hand, Mohd. Asad Shakeel, Senior Manager-Legal of OP-2 filed his affidavit in evidence which is as per line of defence taken by OP-2 in its written statement. OP-2 has also filed written arguments.
8. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by the complainant and OP-2. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant and it appears that there has been a manufacturing and inherent defect in the mobile handset. It is hard to believe that the complainant will cause damage to his
CC No. 16/2017 Page 5 of 7
mobile handset by using in a faulty manner. Moreover, it is hard to believe that the complainant will lodge a false complaint against the newly purchased handset immediately after purchase. Admittedly the mobile handset was within warrantee period and as OPs have failed to rectify the problem in the mobile handset and as such OP-2 has indulged in unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-2. Accordingly, OP-2 is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
9. Accordingly, OP-2 i.e. Micromax Informatics Pvt. Ltd. is directed as under:
i) To refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,000/- being the depreciated price of mobile handset on return of the disputed mobile handset alongwith all the accessories and bill/invoice by the complainant.
ii) To pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation.
10. The above amount shall be paid by OP-2 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-2 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 the OP-2 fails to comply with the order
CC No. 16/2017 Page 6 of 7
within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 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 13thday of June, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 16/2017 Page 7 of 7
UPLOADED BY :- SATYENDRA JEET
