Delhi

StateCommission

A/312/2018

VINOD KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER, MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Jul 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

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

Date of Arguments : 27.07.2018

Date of Decision : 02.08.2018

FIRST APPEAL NO.312/2018

In the matter of:

 

Vinod Kumar

S/o. Shri Ram Avtar,

R/o. H.No.32,

Pana Udyan,

Narela,

Delhi-110040.                                                                                     .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

1. The Manager,

Micromax Informatics Ltd.,

90-B, Sec-18, Gurgaon, Haryana

 

2. M/s. Goswami Communications,

(Micromax Service Centre),

2143 Bawana Road,

Narela, Delhi-110040.......Opposite Parties

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

 

          The present appeal challenges order dated 04.05.2018 passed by District Forum in CC No.1492/2015 vide which the complaint of the appellant had been dismissed.

          The present case is best illustration of frivolous litigation. The appellant who claims himself to be student is habitual litigant.  He filed another complaint against Tata Distributor Pvt. Ltd for damages caused to electrical appliances due to frequent failure of electricity. The said complaint was dismissed by District Forum at the stage of admission itself by observing that complainant was not a consumer. Said order was challenged by way of appeal no.FA-314/2018 and came to be heard before us on 27.07.2018 on which  date present appeal was  heard. That appeal has been allowed and case has been  remanded back to the District Forum for 31.08.2017.

            Present case pertains to purchase of a mobile phone worth Rs.2,000/- on 11.03.2015. The same allegedly stopped working and was taken to service centre / OP-2 on 16.05.2015. OP-2 demanded Rs.450/- for repair despite the fact that mobile phone was in warranty period. It may be highlighted that appellant did not pay the said amount of Rs.450/-. Rather he rushed to the  Consumer Court for delivering him a new mobile phone of the same model and pay compensation.

             During the hearing of the case some compromise took place between the parties according to which OP  agreed to pay Rs.2,000/-. The appellant was not happy with the same.  On 09.02.2017 he stated that counsel for OP-1 took his signature on the so called compromise under mis-representation but what was that mis-representation, is not  known.

            The District Forum observed that complainant failed to file his affidavit in evidence despite giving opportunities and also did not turn up to attend further hearings of the case. Accordingly right of the complainant to file affidavit in evidence was closed.

            There being no evidence on behalf of complainant, the complaint was dismissed.

            The findings of the District Forum are in order. No case can succeed without evidence. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.

            Copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.

            One copy of the  order be placed on file of each complaint.

            File be consigned to record room.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                        (O.P. GUPTA)

MEMBER                                               MEMBER (JUDICIAL)nk