Delhi

South II

CC/138/2016

Bijay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sanpdeal & Others - Opp.Party(s)

12 Dec 2018

ORDER

Udyog Sadan Qutub Institutional Area New Delhi-16
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/138/2016
( Date of Filing : 02 May 2016 )
 
1. Bijay Kumar
C-83 DDA Flats Pocket-11 Jasola Vihar New Delhi-25
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Sanpdeal & Others
246 1st floor Okhla Indl .Area Phase-III New Delhi-20
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  A.S Yadav PRESIDENT
  Ritu Garodia MEMBER
  H.C.SURI MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 12 Dec 2018
Final Order / Judgement

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)x

New Delhi – 110 016

 

 

Case No. 138/2016

 

SHRI BIJAY KUMAR PALAI

R/O C-83, DDA FLATS, POCKET-11,

JASOLA VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110020

………. COMPLAINANT

 

Vs.

 

  1. THE CEO, SNAPDEAL,246, 1ST FLOOR,

OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-III,

NEW DELHI-110020

 

  1. THE SERVICE CENTER MANAGER (MICROMAX)

M/S PERFECT SOLUTIONS (AUTHORISED OF MICROMAX)

E-3, LOWER GROUND FLOOR, KALKAJI, NEW DELHI-110019

 

  1. THE CEO, MICROMAX INFORMATICS LIMITED

MICROMAX HOUSE, 90B, SECTOR-18, GURGAON-122015

………….RESPONDENTS

 

 

Date of Order: 12/12/2018

 

O R D E R

Ritu Garodia-Member

 

            The complaint pertains to defect in product and deficiency in service on part of OPs.

 

            The complainant purchased one mobile “Micromax Canvas Spark Q 380” from OP1 dated 6/5/2015. The warranty was specified for one year.  The phone started giving problems in August 2015 and matter was reported to OP1.  It was on advice of OP1, the complainant visited OP2 service centre for rectification of defect. The product was within warranty.

            The service centre of OP2 informed complainant that the defect will be rectified after payment of repair charges for replacement of screen. A job sheet dated 19/12/2015 was handed over to the complainant.  Several correspondences were exchanged. The complainant prays for refund along with compensation.  The complainant has filed invoice, technical specification, warranty statement, job sheet and correspondence between the parties.

 

            OP1 in its reply has admitted that it operates online market place.  It is stated that all product on the website are sold by third party who raises invoice in the name of final customer. Hence, OP1 is not liable for any defect.

 

            Perusal of the order sheet shows that the complainant sent notice to OP3. Though OP3 was not initially made a party, AR of OP3 appeared and filed a reply on 14/10/2016.  OP3 in its reply has admitted that handset was purchased on 6/5/2015. The handset was found to have “touch water logging” which is not within warranty.  The service centre demanded Rs.1,778/- for repair.  It is further admitted that handset will be repaired free of charges if it is covered under warranty.

           

We have considered the pleadings and documents filed by both the parties. It is admitted that handset was purchased on 6/5/2015 for Rs. 5,655/- and it has warranty for one year.

 

            The job sheet 19/12/2015 shows problem reported as “4911 display touch screen not working”.  It also states repair warranty as no.

 

The complainant has also annexed a letter from OP3 dated 25/12/2015 which runs as under:

 

This is with reference to your e-mail, we would like to inform you that as per the warranty conditions you may avail the warranty of handset within 1 year and accessories within 6 months from the date of purchase mentioned on the purchased bill.

 

If there is any physical/liquid damage then it will be not covered under warranty.

 

            Even the warranty statement annexed to the complaint by the complainant runs as under:

Clause C: Usage other than in accordance with the user manual, rough handling, ingression off exposure to any kind of liquid (water, sweat, beverages, oils etc.) exposure to moisture, dampness or exposure to extreme thermal or environmental conditions, corrosion, oxidation unauthorised repairs, unauthorised spare parts usage, accidents, forces of nature, or other actions beyond the reasonable control of Micromax unless the defect was caused directly by defects in material or workmanship.

 

            It is clear that damage from any kind of liquid or exposure to moisture will not be covered under warranty.  OP3 has explained that handset was found to have water logging and that is why repair charges were demanded.  OP3 was well within its right to ask for repair charges as the product was not covered under warranty due to liquid damage.

 

            Hence, complaint his dismissed file consigned to record room.

 

Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

(RITU GARODIA)                       (H.C SURI)                                    (A.S YADAV)

                 MEMBER                                   MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT

 

 
 
[ A.S Yadav]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Ritu Garodia]
MEMBER
 
[ H.C.SURI]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.