DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 1241/2014
D.No.____________________ Dated: _________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
ANIL BHARDWAJ,
R/o F. No. 329,
WHITE HOUSE APARTMENTS,
PLOT No. 34, SEC.-13,
ROHINI, DELHI.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. RESOURSYS,
B-19, ANSAL TOWER, NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110019.
2. MICROMAX,
PLOT No.-21/14, BLOCK-A,
NARAINA INDL. AREA, PH-II,
NEW DELHI-110028.
3. M/s CARIANO TELECOM,
302, 3rd FLOOR, MANGLAM PLACE,
SEC.-3, M2K, ROHINI, DELHI-110085.
4. SNAPDEAL.COM,
No.246, OKHLA INDL. ESTATE,
PH-III, NEW DELHI-110020. … OPPOSITE PARTY (IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 20.10.2014
Date of decision: 12.09.2019
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under
CC No.1241/2014 Page 1 of 6
Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant purchased online mobile handset model Micromax Bolt A-67 Touch Screen on 21.10.2013 vide invoice no. 21218 of Rs.5,616/- from OP-4. On 08.10.2014, suddenly touch screen of the mobile handset stopped working and on 10.10.2014, the complainant approached service center named Cariano Telecom i.e. OP-3 andthe service center issued job sheet and told that there is some charging problem in the said mobile handset due to this mobile handset touch screen is not working and said if the mobile handset is under warrantee, OP to repair the mobile handset without any charges and if the mobile handset is not under warrantee then the complainant has to pay the amount which is mentioned on the job sheet. Thereafter, when the complainant raised the objection and told that the mobile handset is under warrantee and without examining the mobile handset how can you make a job sheet of estimate and produce the mobile handset invoice copy, then incharge of service center said this is a formality and told to contact after one hour for delivery of the mobile handset. After one hour when the complainant went to collect the mobile handset from OP’s service center, the representative of service center said that the touch screen of the mobile handset is broken and refused to repair the mobile handset and whole staffclubbed over there and started abusing the complainant and
CC No.1241/2014 Page2 of 6
threatened the complainant for dire consequences if visited again at service center of OP. 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 the amount which was charged from the complainant by OP at the time of selling of the mobile handset alongwith interest aswell as compensation for causing him mental agony and harassment and cost of litigation.
3. Subsequently, the complainant filed an application to withdraw the proceedings against OP-3 i.e. Cariano Telecom on 19.12.2017 and the same was allowed vide order dated 19.12.2017. Only OP-2 & OP-4 have been contesting the case and have filed their separate reply/written statement. In written statement OP-2 submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed and OP never denied to provide its after sale services to the complainant as assured under the terms of the warrantee and still ready to provide the same subject to the terms of the warrantee. OP-2 further submitted that the complainant also did not disclose the specific defect in the mobile handset and also cause of defect, whether the defect in the mobile handset is due to liquid/ physical damage and the complainant purchased mobile handset on 21.10.2013 and the warrantee of the mobile handset was upto 20.10.2014, the complainant approached the authorized service
CC No.1241/2014 Page3 of 6
center on 10.10.2014. Thereafter, inspecting the mobile handset by authorized service center found that the mobile handset having found that liquid/physical damage and the authorized service center demanded Rs.4,250/- from the complainant for the repair and the complainant refused to pay the repair charges and insisted the authorized service center to repair under warrantee and the authorized service center returned the mobile handset to the complainant without repair as the defect was not covered under the warrantee.
4. In its reply OP-4 submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed
5. Complainant filed separate rejoinders and denied the contentions of OP-2 & OP-4.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and has also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of retail invoice dated 21.10.2013 regarding purchase of the mobile handset Micromax Bolt A 67 bearing of Rs.5,616/- and copy of job sheet dated 10.10.2014.
7. On the other hand, Mohd. Asad Shakeel,Sr. Manager (Legal) ofOP-2 filed his affidavit in evidence. OP-2 also filed written arguments.
8. Whereas none for OP-4 appeared after filing its reply and no affidavit in evidence on behalf of OP-4 has been filed.
CC No.1241/2014 Page4 of 6
9. This Forum has considered the case of the complainant and OP-2 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-2 has failed to prove the defence that the defect in the mobile handset was not covered under warrantee. It is hard to believe that the complainant of his own will cause physical or liquid damage to his newly purchased mobile handset. Moreover, the authorized service center of OP-2 at the time of preparation of job sheet has not stated that there is physical or liquid damage in the mobile handset and so it cannot be said that the problem in the mobile handset was not covered under warrantee and OP-2 through its service center ought to have repaired the mobile handset free of charges which was not done and mobile handset was returned to the complainant without repair. Accordingly, OP-2is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. It is on record that the complainant has used the mobile handset for about 11 months.
10. Accordingly, OP-2 is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,500/- being the depreciated value of the mobile handset on return of disputed mobile handset alongwith accessories, original invoice and job sheet.
CC No.1241/2014 Page5 of 6
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant whichincludes litigation cost.
11. The above amount shall be paid by OP-2 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving 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 of this order till the date of payment. If OP-2 fails 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 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12. 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 12thday of September, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.1241/2014 Page6 of 6
UPLOADED BY: SATYENDRA JEET
