DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT

PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC

                                                                                      SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.

Saturday, 01^st March 2014

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.  31/ 2013

Nagaraja Kumar, S/o Nagamuneaiah, 3 years,

H.No. 13/343, Sarvyapalli Road, Sainathapuram,

Mydukur, Kadapa Dist.                                                     ….. Complainant.

Vs.

1.  Authorized Signatory, Mycromax Authorized servicing,

     Saigurudatha Agency, Mydukur Road, Proddatur – 516 361,

     Ph. No. 08564 – 240196.

2.  Authorized Signatory, Mycromax Authorized servicing,

     Vijayalakshmi communications, Near RTC Bus stand,

     Kadapa, Ph. No. 9133844377, 9491944377.

3.  Authorized Signatory, Mycromax Authorized servicing,

     Bimar Street, Nandyal, Ph. No. 08514 – 243612, 73866884937.

4.  Managar, Big-C Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Mydukur Road, Proddatur.

5.  Customer Care Officer, Micromax Infermatic Ltd.,

     21/14-A, Phase-2, Nariana Industrial Area,

     Delhi – 110028, Ph. No. 011- 49770000.                    …..  Respondents.

This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 24-02-2014 in the presence of complainant as in person and R1, R3 & R5 called absent and set exparte on 24-7-2013 and R2 and R4 called absent and set exparte on 24-2-2014 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, President FAC),

1.             Complaint filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:-   The complainant purchased one cell phone model is Micromax A75 super phone on 18-4-2012 at BIG-C center, Proddatur for Rs.  9,400/-.   After purchase of one month the mobile gave troubles in touch screen system, and on, off button system.  1^st time the complainant approached R2 and explained about the defects in the cell phone.  The R2 replied that it is the problem of software they will rectify it within two days.  The complainant handed over the mobile phone from R2 after two days the complaint had taken back his mobile phone and R2 said that it was repaired.    But after going to home the complainant had tested his mobile phone and the phone touch screen problem is as it is and it is not rectified. 

3.             The 2^nd time the complaint approached at Micromax authorized center i.e. R3 at Nandyal.  The complainant explained about the problem of mobile phone.  The R3 replied that they need one month time to repair the problem of the mobile phone.  The complainant handed over the mobile phone to R3 and after one month the complainant had taken back his mobile.  The R3 said that they had repaired the mobile phone.     But after coming back to home and tested the touch screen system and the complainant phone touch screen problem is as it is.  It is not repaired.    3^rd time again touch screen problem arises and on off button problem arised.  The complainant again approached R2, they said that they need one month time to repair the mobile phone.  After one month 4 days the complainant had taken back his phone and found that the touch screen problem as it is.  And R2 had not rectified the touch screen problem they repaired only on off button system. 

4.             4^th time again the complainant approached R1 and explained the touch screen problem and they need one month time to repair the phone.  After one month time the complainant approached R1 and R1 said that the mobile was repaired.   They had not tested the mobile because they did not have that model battery so they advised me to check the mobile after charging it.   Again the Complainant approached R1 with same touch screen problem and the R1 deposited and given job sheet.   After 40 days they had return the mobile with the touch screen problem as it is.  Again on 15-2-2013 the complainant approached R1 and explained to exchange the mobile phone in place of defective mobile phone.  The R1 replied that they wrote a letter to the company for exchange of the mobile.  They need one month time, after one month the complainant approached R1 and R1 replied that they had no reply from the company.   On 26-3-2013 R1 returned the defective mobile and said that the mobile was repaired.  But the touch screen problem was not rectified. 

5.             As the respondents did not rectified the problem of the mobile phone and approached them for somany times but in vain.  They did not repaired the mobile.   The complainant got a lot  of mental agony and lost contact mobile numbers due to the defective mobile phone.  Hence, the complainant filed this complaint before this Hon’ble forum to replace the new mobile or Rs. 9,400/- the cost of the mobile phone and pay Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- for cost of the complaint.

6.             R1, R3 and R5 called absent and set exparte on 24-7-2013 and R2 and R4 called absent and set exparte on 24-4-2014. 

7.             On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

i.             Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

ii.            Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of there Respondents?

iii.          To what relief?

8.             On behalf of the complainant PW1 was examined and Ex. A1 to A5 were marked.

9.             Point Nos. 1 & 2.  It is true that the complainant had purchased cell phone at Big – C mobile center for Rs. 9,400/- on 18-4-2013.  Ex. A1 the model of the cell phone is A-75 super phone.  After purchase of the cell phone it was giving troubles in touch screen system and on off buttons system.   The complainant approached R1 to R5 many times to rectify the troubles in the mobile phone.  He gave phone at R1 to R5 showing many times for repair but in vain.   Atlast the complaint approached the Hon’ble forum.  Ex. A2 is the original customer job card issued by R1, dt. 15-2-2013.  The complainant had issued legal notice to R1 to R4 27-3-2013 under Ex. A3.  The complainant had issued legal notice to the R5 on 12-4-2013.  From  all the above exhibits it is very clear that the complainant had tried his level best to rectify the defects of the cell phone.  At last the complainant approached R1 and asked for new mobile in place of the defective mobile.  But there is no response from R1.    All the above averments shows that there is a defect in the mobile phone purchased by the complainant on 18-4-2012 from R4.   The complainant had suffered a lot with defective mobile phone.   So the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him.   There is deficiency of service on the part of the R4.  As the complainant had purchased the mobile phone from R1, it is the bounded liability of R4 to rectify the defects in mobile phone.  The R4 did not do the same. 

10.            Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the Respondents 1 & 4 to pay Rs. 9,400/- (Rupees Nine Thousand and four hundred only) the cost of the mobile phone, after returning the defective mobile phone by the complainant, pay Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards cost of the complaint, in total R4 & R1 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 13,400/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousands and four hundred only) to the complainant, within 45 days of date of receipt of orders.  The complainant is directed to return the mobile phone to R4.   Complaint against R2, R3 & R5 is dismissed without costs. 

                Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 01^st March 014

MEMBER                                                                                   PRESIDENT FAC

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant  

PW1          Nagaraja Kumar, dt. 24-2-2012.  

For Respondents :     NIL      

Exhibits marked for Complainant  : -

Ex. A1       Original bill receipt issued by the R4 i.e. Big-C mobile center, Proddatur to petitioner, dt. 18-4-2013 for Rs. 9,400/-.

Ex. A2       Original Customer job card issued by the R1 i.e. Sai Gurudatta Agency, Proddatur to complainant dt. 15-2-2013.

Ex. A3       P/c of notice issued by the complainant to R1 to R4 dt. 27-3-2013.

Ex. A4       P/c of notice issued by the complainant to R5 dt. 12-4-2013.

Ex. A5       Original registered Postal receipts No. 4 of Ex. A4, dt. 27-3-2013.

Exhibits marked for Respondents: -                          NIL 

MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT FAC

Copy to :-

                            1) Nagaraja Kumar, S/o Nagamuneaiah, H.No. 13/343, Sarvyapalli Road, Sainathapuram, Mydukur, Kadapa Dist.                                                    

   2) Authorized Signatory, Mycromax Authorized servicing, Saigurudatha Agency, Mydukur Road, Proddatur – 516 361, Ph. No. 08564 – 240196.

   3) Authorized Signatory, Mycromax Authorized servicing, Vijayalakshmi communications, Near RTC Bus stand, Kadapa, Ph. No. 9133844377, 9491944377.

                             4)  Authorized Signatory, Mycromax Authorized servicing, Bimar Street, Nandyal, Ph. 08514 –243612, 73866884937.

                             5)  Managar, Big-C Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Mydukur Road, Proddatur.

                             6)  Customer Care Officer, Micromax Infermatic Ltd., 21/14-A, Phase-2, Nariana Industrial Area,  Delhi – 110028, Ph. No. 011- 49770000.  

B.V.P.