Delhi

North East

CC/17/2015

Narayan Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sai Communication - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jan 2020

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.  17/15

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Narayan Sharma S/o Shri Har Dayal Sharma R/o 828, Gali No. 15, E-II, Block Nehru Vihar, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
1       2           3	SAI Communication B-1/235, Yamuna Vihar Delhi-110053   The Mobile Care B-36, Guru Nanak Pura Opp. V3S Mall Near Maharaja Banquet Hall, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092   M/s. Micromax Ltd. 288-A, Udyog Vihar Phase IV Gurugram-122015, Haryana	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

12.01.2015 13.01.2020 13.01.2020

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Brief facts as culled out by the complainant in the present complaint are that he had purchased a Micromax Mad A94 Mobile phone bearing IMEI no. 911343701699862 manufactured by OP3 from OP1 on 16.04.2014 for a sum of Rs. 8,500/- inclusive of VAT   vide Book No. 5 / invoice no. 492. However, the subject mobile started giving problem after few months of usage, and therefore complainant had to submit his hand set to OP2 on 30.07.2014 and received the same on 08.09.2014. However, the subject mobile started giving restart and heating problem and by 30.11.2014 it lost its display automatically for which the complainant had to again submit the same with OP2 on 01.12.2014 vide job sheet no. N030666-1214-13670999. However, despite repeated reminder by complainant to OP2 thereafter, the subject mobile has not been returned and instead the repair period was extended vide new job sheet no. N030666-1214-13979838 dated 19.12.2014. The complainant has been following up with OP2 since end of December and also to OP3’s Customer Care Service with which he had lodged a complaint no. MMX2712142004 and was asked to contact again after one month on 27.12.2017 but till date the OP2 & OP3 have neither given any satisfactory response nor have repaired and handed over the phone back to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant was compelled to file the present complaint against OPs praying for issuance of direction for refund of mobile handset price i.e. Rs. 8,500/-, compensation of  Rs. 25,000/- of mental harassment and Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. Complainant has attached copy of purchase invoice, copy of job sheet dated 01.12.2014 and copy of email dated 16.12.2014 by complainant to OP2 asking for status report of repair of his mobile.
3. Notice was issued to the OPs on 10.02.2015 on which date copy of complaint with paper book received by OP3. However, none appeared on behalf of OP1 & OP2 despite service effected on 28.09.2015 and sufficient opportunity and even OP3 stopped appearing after taking copy of the complaint. Therefore all OPs proceed against ex-parte vide order dated 08.12.2015. Counsel for OP3 appeared on 14.01.2016 and offered replacement of the defective handset with a brand new set but the offer was declined by the complainant.
4. Complainant filed ex-parte evidence by way affidavit and written arguments in reassertion of his grievance against OPs. In written arguments complainant alleged that it has come to his knowledge that OP2 has misplaced the mobile handset and therefore were unable to give any satisfactory response about its repair and return.
5. Written arguments were filed by OP3 submitting that complainant had failed to produce terms and conditions of warranty on which basis only he has the right to claim after sale services from OP3. Per contra OP3 submitted that complainant refused to receive back the repair mobile phone from OP2, its Authorized Service Center (ASC) and is instead only wanting a replacement and refusing to take the SWAP handset in order to pressurize OP3. Lastly, OP3 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on its part and it has never denied any services to complainant and prayed for rejection of complaint in view of no specific allegations of manufacturing defect or expert evidence / report.
6. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant and have perused the documents placed on record by him. It is evident from the same that the subject mobile phone manufactured by OP3 and purchased in April 2014 from OP1 started giving problems soon after purchase for which it was deposited twice with OP2 by complainant in July 2014 and November 2014 and ever since then for last more than five years, none of the OPs have either repaired or responded to the grievance of the complainant and have not even returned the subject handset to him. In view of absence of OPs and rebuttal to the allegations leveled against them in the present complaint, we allow the present complaint against all OPs and directed OP1, OP2 & OP3 jointly and severally to refund the cost of mobile i.e. Rs 8,500/- to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- jointly and severally as compensation for mental harassment inclusive of litigation charges. Let the order be complied by OP1, OP2 & OP3 within the 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
7.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8.   File be consigned to record room.
9.   Announced on  13.01.2020

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member