DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 999/2016
D.No._______________ Dated:________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
PANKAJ S/oLATE SH. MOOL CHAND,
R/o L-6, STREET No. 13,
BRAHMPURI, DELHI-110053. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. THE MOBILE HUB,
G-16, GF FLOOR, PLOT No.17, M2K,
AGGARWAL CITY PLAZA, MANGALAM PLACE,
SEC.-3, ROHINI, DELHI-110085.
2. M/s S.S. COMMUNICATION,
SHOP No.19-A, HUDSON LANE,
KINGSWAY CAMP, GTB NAGAR,DELHI-110009.
3. MICROMAX, (MICROMAX HOUSE),
90 B, SEC.-18, GURGAON. … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 26.09.2016
Date of decision: 22.03.2019
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that on 28.04.2016, the complainant went to the shop of OP-1 for purchasing a new mobile handset and accordingly the shopkeeper suggested to the complainant for purchasing the mobile
CC No.999/2016 Page 1 of 6
handset of Micromax E-484 Canvas 6 Pro by disclosing some new advance features and believing upon the words of OP-1 the complainant agreed to purchase the said mobile handset vide IMEI No. 911471700158646 for a sum of Rs.14,000/- bearing the retail invoice no. TMH/16-17/353 on 28.04.2016. In the month of June-2016, the said mobile handset got faulty, after that the complainant approached OP-1 and official of OP-1 replaced the mobile handset with new one against bill no.TMH/16-17/913 on 11.06.2016 and IMEI no. 911514050175718 & 9115144050175726 and the complainant was shocked when the complainant found that the mobile handset got faulty within one week. Thereafter, the complainant again approached OP-1 and the official of OP-1 suggested to approach to OP-2 and the complainant approached OP-2 and the official of OP-2 received the said mobile handset against job sheet no. 2122202-0616-24072992and at the time of receiving, the official of OP-2 agreed to return the mobile handset within 10 days in good running condition but after passing of 15 days there is no any proper result from OP-2. The complainant further alleged that the complainant received mobile handset but the complainant was shocked when the complainant found that the handset is still faulty and after that the complainant again handed over the mobile handset with OP-2 on 19.08.2016 for overheating and display problem in the mobile handset and in this regard the
CC No.999/2016 Page2 of 6
complainant contacted to OP-2 and requested OP-2 to remove the said problem and the official of OP-2 received the mobile handset against job sheet no.2122202-0816- 25005068 on 19.08.2016. The complainant further alleged that at the time of taking the said faulty mobile handset the official of OP-2 assured to the complainant to return the said mobile handset in good running condition within 21 days but after passing about the month no one handover the mobile handset of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant many times visited at the service center of OP-2 and requested OP-2 to return his mobile handset but all the requests of the complainant were fallen in deaf ears and the complainant approached several times to OP-3 for repairing his mobile handset as it is duly covered and protected within warrantee period but official of OP-3 did not take any pain. The complainant further alleged that the complainant has also many times contacted and requested to the manager of OP-2 & OP-3 through telephonically as well as personally but no avail and keep on avoiding the matter on one pretext or another. The complainant further alleged that the mobile handset is still lying faulty with OP-2 and the complainant further alleged that there is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OPs and OPs have cheated the complainant.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to refund the invoice amount of the
CC No.999/2016 Page3 of 6
mobile handset i.e. Rs.14,000/- alongwith interest as well as compensation of Rs.80,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment and has also sought Rs.1,100/- as cost of litigation.
3. None for OP-1 & OP-2 has appeared despite service of notice and have been proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.01.2017. OP-3 has been contesting the complaint and has filed written statement. In the written statement OP-3 submitted that the case of the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. OP-3 further submitted that OP-3 is still ready to provide the same subject to the terms of the warrantee and the complainant purchase the mobile handset on 11.04.2016, the complainant approached to authorized service center of OP on 26.08.2016 for overheating and the authorized service center repaired the mobile handset and the authorized service center called up several times to collect the mobile handset but the complainant never turned up to collect the mobile handset, the mobile handset ready with authorized service center and the complainant can collect the same after producing necessary documents such as original job card issued by the authorized service center of OP.
4. The complainant filed rejoinder and denied the version of OP-3.
5. In order to prove hiscase the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. Thecomplainant also placed on record copies of retail invoices dated 28.04.2016 &
CC No.999/2016 Page4 of 6
11.06.2016 bearing no. TMH/16-17/353 & TMH/16-17/913 issued by OP-1, copy of job sheet dated 19.08.2016 issued by OP-2 and copy of letter dated nil sent by the complainant to OP-3.
6. On the other hand on behalf of OP-3,Mohd. Asad Shakeel,Sr. Manager-Legal/Authorized Representative of OP-3 filed his affidavit in evidence which is on the basis of the written statement of OP-3. OP-3 has also filed written arguments.
7. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the lightof evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. It is hard to believe that the complainant will cause damage to his mobile handset by using in improper manner. Admittedly the mobile handset was within warrantee period. As OPs have failed to rectify the problem in the mobile handset and as such OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 &OP-3 and it appears that there has been a manufacturing and inherent defect in the mobile handset. Accordingly, OP-2 & OP-3 are held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
8. Thus, holding guilty for the same, we direct OP-2 &OP-3 jointly or severally as under:
CC No.999/2016 Page5 of 6
i) To refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.14,000/- being the price of mobile handset on return of all the accessories and bill/invoice by the complainant.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,100/- as cost of litigation.
9. The above amount shall be paid by OP-2 &OP-3 are jointly or severally to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-2 &OP-3 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. If OP-2 &OP-3 fail to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10. 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 22ndday of March, 2019.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.999/2016 Page6 of 6
