Delhi

North East

CC/346/2015

Abhishek Kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Mobile Care Authorized Service Center - Opp.Party(s)

14 Jan 2016

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.346/15

 

CORAM:         Hon’ble President Sh. N.K. Sharma

                        Hon’ble Member Sh. Nishat Ahmad Alvi

                        Hon’ble Member Manju Bala Sharma

 

In the matter of:

Abhishek Kumar

S/o Shri Pappu Kumar

R/o D-1/56, Nand Nagri, Delhi-93.                                                                  Complainant

 

Vs

 

1. The Mobile Care Authorized Service Centre

B-36. 1^st Floor, Guru Nanak Pura

Laxmi Nagar (Opp V3S Mall)

Near Mahajan Banquet Hall Delhi-92.

 

2. Syber Palace E Solutions Pvt Ltd

105, KTC Illumination Building Westin Hotal Road

Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telegana-500081.

 

3. M/s Micromax Informatics Ltd

21/14A, Phase-II, Naraina Industrial Area

Delhi-110028.                                                                                  Respondents 

 

Order

 

 DATE OF INSTITUTION: 17-09-2015

 DATE OF DECISION      : 14-01-2016

 

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member

Ms. Manju Bala Sharma

 

By way of present complaint complainant alleged that he purchased a mobile of Micromax Canvas Gold A-300, IMI No. 911338900893001 on 9-12-14 for Rs. 14,929/-. Mobile phone of the complainant developed defects and on 9-7-15 he deposited the same to OP1- the service centre, where he was told to get the same back after 10 days. But after 10 days he was again asked to wait some more days and till date mobile set has not been returned by service centre after rectification. Complainant has also annexed copy of an FIR dated 25-8-15 of a theft of jobsheet.

After notice Mr. Satveer Sharma Advocate, counsel for OP3- the manufacturer of mobile, appeared and sought time to settle the matter. On the next date after coordinating with service centre he informed that mobile set is ready and complainant is not collecting the same. Complainant has informed that on 25-8-15 the jobsheet was stolen and when he visited OP1 for collecting mobile, OP1 did not give the mobile as he was not able to produce jobsheet, since stolen. Now after indulgence of counsel of OP3, OP1 has handed over the mobile set.

In the facts and circumstances stated above the delay in handing over the mobile set was not for the reason that it was not repaired but due to complainant’s inability to produce the jobsheet, in proof of deposit of mobile set, which fact has been concealed by the complainant in his complaint. Now though complainant has received a properly repaired handset but he is claiming for extension of warranty on the mobile set, on the ground that the mobile was delayed due to default on the part of service centre. In our view the delay in handing over mobile after repairs was not due to any default of OP1 but for the reasons stated above. Hence, there being no deficiency on OPs part complainant is not entitled for any compensation for mental agony etc or litigation cost as prayed. The only relief available to the complainant was repair of the mobile which has since been done. Accordingly, complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.    

Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on: - 14-01-2016

 

   On Leave

(N.K.Sharma)                      (Nishat Ahmad Alvi)            (Manju Bala Sharma)

  President                                     Member                                   Member