BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
C.C NO-43/2018
Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Smita Tripathy, Member (W).
Brundaban Mishra,aged about 35 years,
S/O- Sri Akshay Mishra,
R/O- Putibandh(Bajrang Bihar),
P.O/P.S-Dhanupali,Dist-Sambalpur-768005(Odisha). …..Complainant
Vrs.
- R.R Mobiles,
At/Po-Budhraja, P.S-Ainthapali,
Dist-Sambalpur-768004(Odisha).
- Micromax Infirmatics Ltd,
288-A, Udyog Vihar Phase IV,
Gurgaon-122015, Haryana.……O.Ps
Counsels:-
- For the Complainant:- Self.
- For the O.P-1 :- None.
- For the O.P-2 :- None.
DATE OF HEARING : 01.03.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 08.03.2021
SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:-Brief facts of the case is that, the Complainant has purchased a Micromax mobile hand set of model Q-4101,Dual Sim from M/S-Harsh Communication on payment of Rs.4380/- dtd. 09.09.2017. The IMEI nos. of the Handset are-911523906411920 and 911523906411938. After one-two months of use the mobile handset the Complainant faced MIC problem with network fluctuation issues. The other problems like-hang, auto restart, heating, call barring, voice not audible to others, etc were also faced by the Complainant. He made contact with the O.P-1 who is the Authorised Service Centre of Micromax Mobile Company. The O.P-1 took two hours to repair the said defective mobile and handed over to me. The Complainant asked for the Job card to the authorised person present there to confirm about repairing the handset but he denied to provide the same. Thereafter the Complainant has visited four times to repair the mobile handset having the same defect as before but could not be solved till filing of this case. As the job sheet is not provided to the Complainant he is not able to file the same with the Complaint petition. The matter was intimated to the O.P-2 through e-mail on dtd.27.06.2018 and in response the O.P-2 sent a message that he will attend the problem as early as possible but in vain. The Mobile handset is within the warranty period and it will expire after some days. The Complainant apprehends that if during the warranty period he has not been served by the O.Ps then it will be impossible to get it solve after warranty period. The Complainant is running a Xerox shop and also work to sell recharge voucher through this mobile and maintain his family out of this. Due to the defective mobile his earning has been stopped since long. Hence finding no other way he filed this petition before this commission to get certain relief as prayed.
The O.P-1 & 2, despite of service of notice they did not bother to appear before this Commission thus challenging the allegations made by the Complainant. So taking it in to consideration as “IT IS A YEAR OLD CASE”, this Commission has rightly decided to dispose the case as well setting the O.P-1 & 2 as ex-parte in this case. Hence hearing conducted exparte under Rule-6 of Order-9 of Civil Procedure Code.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-
- Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
- Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?
From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has purchased a new Micromax mobile handset from a dealer at Dhanupali, Sambalpur on payment of consideration amount. It is the O.Ps to provide after sales services but neglected the purchaser/consumer/Complainant when he faced certain defects in the said mobile handset after using the same for some months. But despites several visits to the O.P-1, he could not get it repaired being the Authorised service centre and unable to provided required after sale services to the Complainant though the mobile handset was within warranty period. The O.P-1 has neglected to provide necessary after sale services and shifted the burden to the manufacturer (O.P-2). But OPs were at least required to repair it. Neither they repaired it properly nor did they replace the defective mobile phone to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. This matter has been well settled in the case of “Pallavi vs. Apple India Pvt. Ltd.” decided by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Punjab , Chandigarh on 7th September, 2017.Hence the O.Ps have committed “Deficiency in Service” u/s-2(11) of Consumer Protection Act-2019, by not providing proper services to the Complainant. Hence we order as under:-
ORDER
The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.Ps are directed to replace the defective mobile handset and provide him a brand new Mobile Handset of same make and model i.e. make Micromax mobile hand set of model Q-4101, Dual SIM or refund the cost of the mobile handset of Rs.4,380/-with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the complaint, i.e., dtd. 17.04.2015 till its realisation." The O.Ps are further directed to pay Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand)as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) towards the cost of litigation. All the above orders are to be carried out within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.
Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 8th day of March-2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.
Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.
I agree,
-Sd/- -Sd/-
MEMBER.(W) PRESIDENT.
Dictated and Corrected
By me.
-Sd/-
PRESIDENT.
