STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN Date of Admission : 01.03.2016 Date of Final Hearing : 24.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025 SC/5/A/25/2016 CellzOne

349, Golghar, Near Hotel Suman Regency, Bada Bazar, Mallital, Nainital Through Proprietor Sh. Akif Ahmed S/o Sh. Anees Ahmed (Through: Sh. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate)

…..Appellant VERSUS Sh. Devendra Singh Bisht S/o Late Sh. Ganga Singh Bisht R/o Saraswati Bhawan, Garden House Compound, Mallital, Nainital …..None for Respondent Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. C.M. Singh, Member

ORDER

(Per: Mr. C.M. Singh, Member):

This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 05.01.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nainital (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 32 of 2015 styled as Sh. Devendra Singh Bisht vs. Proprietor, CellzOne, wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 7,600/- towards cost of mobile phone ‘Micromax Med A- 94 M-IMEI No. 911343705128157 & 911343705428151 to the complainant alongwith Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses within a period of one month from the date of this judgment and order, failing which the complainant is entitled to get simple interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of consumer complaint till its actual payment. On the date of compliance of judgment and order, the complainant will hand over the accessories of the mobile set in question.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such on dated 07.07.2014, the complainant purchased a Micromax Med A-94 mobile phone for Rs. 7,600/- (IMEI No. 911343705128157 & 911343705428151) from the opposite party. Within three months of purchase, the said mobile handset began to malfunction, particularly the camera which stopped functioning. The complainant approached the opposite party, who initially corrected a minor defect but failed to fix the issue of camera. Despite, several visits, the opposite party continuously delayed proper repair. On dated 03.12.2014, the complainant again approached the opposite party, who retained the said mobile handset and gave assurance that it would be sent to service centre of the concerned company and will be returned within a week. However, even after 7-8 days and repeated follow ups, the said mobile handset was not returned and opposite party kept giving excuses. The complainant thereafter issued a legal notice on dated 10.02.2015, which was duly served, but no response was received from the opposite party. As a result, the complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss. The complainant contended that such act of the opposite party clearly amounts to deficiency in service, therefore, the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed in the complaint.

3. The opposite party in its written statement admitted the sale of the said mobile handset but denied all other allegations. The answering opposite party stated that the complainant had purchased the said mobile handset and later approached them with a technical issue, which was duly rectified. However, the complainant subsequently get the said mobile handset repaired from another source, causing further problems. The answering opposite party further stated that the complainant did not personally visited the shop, but sent a women who left the said mobile handset there. The complainant failed to follow-up leaving the said mobile handset at the answering opposite party’s shop. The answering opposite party contended that the said mobile handset was non-refundable and that warranty and guarantee were provided by the manufacturer who was not made a party to the complaint case. The answering opposite party claimed that being a retailer, the answering opposite party had rectified the initial fault when the complainant returned with the issue. The answering opposite party submitted that