Delhi

StateCommission

A/309/2017

ISHWER CHAND YADAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE GENERAL MANAGER MICROMAX & ANR - Opp.Party(s)

PARTAP SINGH

10 Aug 2017

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                                             Date of Arguments: 31.07.17

                  Date of Decision:     10.08.17

First Appeal No. 309/2017

In the matter of:

Shri Ishwar Chand Yadav

S/o Shri Jagannath Yadav

R/o 198, Police Colony

H Block, Phase-1

Ashok Vihar, New Delhi-110052.                                                                    ….Appellant

 

                                                            Versus

 

1. The General Manager

Micromax, Micromax House

90A, Sector-18

Gurgaon, Haryana.

 

2. World Telecom House

Shop No. 300,

Fatehpuri Masjid

Near Rama Watch, Chandni  Chowk

Delhi- 110006.

 

3. M/s AVJ Communication

Ist Floor, Hudson Lane

Kingsway Camp, Near GTB Metro

Station Gate No. 4

Delhi-110009.                                                                                     ……Respondents

                       

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O.P.Gupta, Member(Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes/No

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes/No

SHRI O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

JUDGEMENT

                Aggrieved by order dated 02.03.17 passed by District Forum (North) in CC No. 173/16 the complainant has come in the instant appeal.  ON 02.02.16 the appellant purchased mobile handset make Micromax for Rs.6700/- fro OP 3.  From day one the same started giving problems of hanging and lines appeared on the screen.  OP 1 was approached for repair but problems could not be resolved.  The complainant filed case for Rs. 1,10,000/- for financial, physical and mental torture as well as litigation expenses.

2.         OP 1 offered to refund entire cost price of the mobile handset on the very first appearance i.e on 15.11.16.  On 12.12.16 OP tendered cheque of Rs. 6700/- to show his bonafide but complainant declined to receive the same.  OP repeated the offer on 01.03.17.

3.         The District Forum came to the conclusion that interest of justice can be met if cost of mobile is refunded to the complainant,  Accordingly OP was directed to pay Rs.6700/- to the complainant and complainant was to return the original job card alongwith all accessories to OP 1.

4.         Complainant has come in appeal for compensation only.   A strange case.  For a petty  product,  he did not feel satisfy by offer made by the OP, on the very first date of hearing.  Consumer Protection Act is not meant for enriching consumers overnight.  To seek compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- for product of Rs. 6700/- is nothing but joke.

5.         Appeal fails and is dismissed in limini.

            Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

            One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.

 

                (ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                           (O.P.GUPTA)

            MEMBER                                                                   MEMBER(JUDICIAL)