Date of filing :- 21/03/2016.
Date of Order:- 23/11/2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H
Consumer Complaint No. 10 of 2016
Sri Pawan Agrawal, aged about 31(thirty one) years, Son of Hiralal Agrawal, Occupation:- Business, Resident of Ward No. 5, Bargarh, Po/Ps/tahasil/Dist.-Bargarh ..... ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
- V e r s u s -
MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD., Represented through its Managing Director, 21/14 A, Plase- II, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi, 110028.
MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD., Customer Care Officer, 90 B, Sector-18, Gurgaon, Haryana, 122015.
M/s. R.R.MOBILE, Represented through its Proprietor, Near Shrusti Nursing Home, Jyoti Complex, Budharaja, Sambalpur- 768004.
M/S SANDHYA TRADING, Represented through its Proprietor, in front of Govt. Bus Stand, Bargarh – 768028. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties.
For the Complainant:- Sri L. Mishra, Advocate with others Advoctes.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one)
No.2(two), No.3(three) and No.4(four):- Ex-parte.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt.23/11/2016 -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Sri P.K. Dash, Member:-
The Complaint pertains to deficiency in service enumerated under the provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the gist of the Complaint described here under.
The Complainant is a permanent resident under the jurisdiction of this forum where as the Opposite Party No.1(one) is dealing with the business of Micromax Mobile phones through out India including in the District of Bargarh. The Opposite Party No.2(two) has been appointed by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to resolve the Complaints made to it by the customers. The Opposite Party No.3(three) is the authorized service center of Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.4(four) is the local retailer for the Micromax Mobile set in Bargarh town.
The Complainant in his Complaint contend that being allure with the fame and reputation of Opposite Party No.1(one) and the assurance for prompt services to be rendered by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant purchased one Micromax A121 Mobile handset of white colour on Dt.11/11/2014 from the Opposite Party No.4(four) with a due receipt bearing No.331 for an amount of Rs.7800/-(Rupees seven thousand eight hundred)only. That after fifteen days of purchase of handset the Complainant found the mobile set not functioning properly, the fact of which a Complaint lodged before the Opposite Party No.4(four) who advised him to contact with Opposite party No.3(three) and accordingly the Complainant met Opposite party No.3(three) and the Opposite party No.3(three) after verifying the handset opined to install a new software in the handset for which the Complainant handed over the mobile set to the Opposite party No.3(three).
Further the Complaint reveals that the Opposite party No.3(three) returned the handset to the Complainant with an assurance that a new software being installed in the handset for proper working of the same. After few days again the same problem persisted in the handset for which the Complainant drew attention of both the Opposite party No.3(three) and Opposite party No.2(two) and was advised to consult the Opposite party No.3(three). The Complainant again handed over the mobile set to the Opposite party No.3(three) and the Opposite Party No.3(three) with some false pretends, retained the mobile handset for more than two months and ultimately with the plea of manufacturing defect advised the Complainant to change the mobile set with a new one. That agreed to the proposal the Complainant on Dt.22/05/2015 received one Black colour Micromax A121 handset of the same make and model replacing the white one. That after four days the Complainant noticed the same problem with the new handset and fact of which lodged Complaint before Opposite party No.3(three) and Opposite party No.4(four).
Further the Complaint contends that the Opposite party No.3(three) express his helplessness and advised the Complainant to contact with the Opposite party No.2(two) and accordingly the Complainant registered a Complaint bearing No. MMX030615386799. The Opposite party No.2(two) advised the Complainant to contact with the Opposite Party No.3(three) and accordingly the Complainant deposited the new Micromax A121 Black colour Mobile set before the Opposite Party No.3(three) on Dt.03/06/2015. That till date the Opposite Party No.3(three) neither repaired the Mobile nor he provided a new handset to the Complainant. That the Complainant on Dt.22/09/2015 served pleader notice on the Opposite Parties but inspite of receiving notice ,the Opposite Parties did not act upon in any manner. That for such act and conduct of Opposite Parties the Complainant suffers mental agony, harassment besides heavy business loss which amounts to unfair trade practice so also deficiency in providing Consumer Service to the Complainant.
The Complainant seeks the redressal of his grievance before the forum to direct the Opposite Parties to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only along with pendentilite and future interest on account of mental agony, harassment and business loss. Further the Opposite Parties be directed to provide a new Micromax A121 mobile hand set of white colour, in alternative the cost of the hand set i.e. Rs.7800/-(Rupees seven thousand eight hundred) only along with litigation expanses to the Complainant.
The Complainant in support of his contention has relied upon the xerox copies of the following documents :-
Cash memo of Sandhya Trading vide Sl.No. 331 Dt.11/11/2014. (Xerox copy-1-sheet)
Xerox copy of Job sheet, Dt.01/06/2015. (1 sheet)
Office copy of pleader notice, Dt.22/09/2015 (3 sheets)
Postal receipts in original (one sheet)
Inspite of being duly served notices, none of the Opposite Parties preferred to appear before the forum to defend the allegations of the Complaint and the forum set them ex parte in the complaint and posted for exparte hearing of the case.
Gone through the pleading of the Complainant so also the documents relied upon and heard argument advanced by the advocate for the Complainant, the points arose for the decision are as follows.
Is the Complainant a Consumer under the Opposite Parties ?
Is there any negligence by the Opposite Parties causing deficiency in providing Consumer service to the Complainant ?
The Complainant by virtue of a valid cash receipt bearing No.331 Dt.11/11/2014 has purchased the Micromax A 121 Mobile hand set from the Opposite party No.4(four) by paying an amount of Rs.7800/-(Rupees seven thousand eight hundred)only for his own use. So as per provision described u/s 2(1) d (i) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Complainant is a Consumer for purchasing goods under the Opposite Parties. The point accrued for determination is decided affirmatively.
The Opposite Party No.4 (four) as well as the Opposite Party No.2 (two) in different time have advised the Complainant to contact the Opposite party No.3(three) and the job sheet prepared by the Opposite Party No.3(three) clearly reveals that, the mobile hand set has been handed over to him on Dt.01/06/2015, and the problem reported in the alleged handset are certainly a fault, imperfection, short coming or inadequacy in the quality of good (i.e. Mobile hand set), nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained.
The make and model of the micromax mobile hand set even after replacement showed the same problem for which a Complaint bearing No. MMX030615386799 was lodged by the Complainant before the Opposite Party No.2(two) which was also not attended properly. The Opposite Party No.2(two) inspite of suggesting the Complaint to contact with Opposite Party No.3(three) could have made arrangement to bring this to the notice of Opposite Party No.1 or to the head of the manufacturing unit of the mobile handset to resolve the problem of the Complainant. Rather the Opposite Parties have thrown the ball to the net of one another. More over the allegations of the Complaint gets more emphasis when none of the Opposite Parties appear before the forum to defend the allegations of the Complainant. In the instant circumstance and fact of the case, all such activities and conduct of the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in providing service to the Complainant under the provisions of Sec 2 (1) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and all the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable for the same. The second point for determination is decided in affirmation.
Delving deep into the matter and owing to the provision of law, the finding of the forum is as follows.
O R D E R
The Opposite Parties are directed to give a white colour Micromax mobile handset of the model A 121 or in alternative to pay jointly and severally the cost of the Mobile handset i.e. Rs. 7,800/-(Rupees seven thousand eight hundred)only and Rs. 3,000/-(Rupees three thousand)only towards mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses to the Complainant with in thirty days from the date of Order i.e. Dt. 23/11/2016, failing which the total awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% (twelve percent ) per annum till the actual payment.
The Complainant is directed to handover the defective Mobile handset immediately to the Opposite Parties as the case may be after the receiving of the awarded amount from the Opposite Parties.
The Complaint is allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r.
I agree,
(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
