BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM :: KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Saturday, 23rd August 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 17/ 2014
K. Moulali, S/o Khadar Saheb, aged 35 years,
R/at D.No. 18/527, B.K.M Street,
Kadapa City, YSR District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. Micromax Informatics Ltd., Rep. by its
Managing Director, 21/14A, Phase-II,
Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi – 110028.
2. Vijaya Lakshmi Communications, Rep. by its
Manager, Authorized Service Centre to Micromax,
4/781, Sivalingam Street, Nagendra Prasad Hospital,
Nagarajupet, Kadapa – 516 002.
3. Nakshatra Mobils, Rep. by its Proprietor,
Authorized Dealer of Micromax, 4/723-16,
Janatha Complex, Beside Bata Show Room,
Near Old Bus stand, Nagarajupet,
Kadapa city – 516 001. ….. Respondents.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 21-8-2014 in the presence of Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate, for complainant and R2 appeared as in person and R1 & R3 called absent and set exparte 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:- It is humbly submitted that the R1 is engaged in business of manufacturing and marketing of mobile phones and R2 is authorized service center and R3 is authorized retailer of R1. The complainant has purchased a cell phone pertaining to R1, bearing A110 model, by paying Rs. 9,700/- on 27-9-2013 from R3. To that effect the R3 also issued a receipt bearing No. 4096 in his favour. As per the terms and conditions, the said cell phone bears one year warranty from the date of purchase i..e till 27-9-2014.
3. It is submitted that from the date of the purchase, the said cell phone developed with problems. The battery was not charged properly and videos features are not functioning properly. As there was a software problem, the complainant could not even able to operate mobile phone. On that he contacted with R2 and informed his grievance. He has handed over the mobile to R2 for the said defects. The R2 tried to rectify the problem and return the same to the compliant. But, even after its repair the same defects persist. Again the complainant has handed over mobile to R2 for two more times for rectification of defects. But R2 could not rectify the same and returned the same by saying that the mobile has inherent defect and the responsibility of replacement is the duty of R1 and thrown entire burden on the R1.
4. It is further submitted that the complainant is physically challenged person and due to defectiveness in the mobile manufactured and marketed by all the respondents, he was forced to run around their offices. But his grievance is not redressed by the respondents. Due to their negligent attitude, the complainant is put to mental agony and physical strain. As the mobile phone is having inherent defects, the respondents are liable to replace or to refund the price of mobile phone together with interest and also liable to pay compensation to him.
5. The complainant having vexed with negligent attitude of the respondents, got issued a notice dt. 31-01-2014 to the respondents calling upon to replace or to refund the price of mobile i.e. Rs. 9,700/- together with 24% interest from the date of purchase i.e. 19-11-2013 and also pay Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and physical strain to him, within seven days of receipt of notice. But till date there is no response from their end.
6. It is submitted that the mobile phone sold by the respondents to the complainant is a defective one having manufacturing defects. Due to manufacturing defect only the features of mobile are not functioning. The respondents has legal obligation to replace the mobile or to refund its cost to the complainant as the problem was arose within the warranty period that too from the date of purchase of the same. But, in the present case, the respondents even failed to provide minimum service to the complainant by throwing the burden on one other. The services of the respondents are deficient in nature and they are adopting unfair trade practice.
7. It is submitted that due to malfunctioning of mobile, the complainant has been put to metal agony for all these days. The respondents are liable to compensate the complainant. The respondents are liable to refund the value of the mobile phone together with interest and compensation to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
8. The cause of action arose on 27-9-2013 when the complainant purchased mobile phone from the respondents and when on all dates the said mobile phone developed with defects and on dates when the complainant demanded for refund of amount within the jurisdiction of Hon’ble forum at YSR District. A fee ofRs. 100/- is paid by way of I.P.O.
9. It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to allow the complaint and pass orders in favour of the complainant directing the respondents (a) to replace or to refund the price of mobile i.e. Rs. 9,700/- together with 24% interest from the date of purchase i.e. 19-11-2013 till the date of realization, (b) also to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and physical strain to him by keeping quiet for all these days without rectifying the problem of the cell phone and (c) to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards the costs of the complaint and other reliefs as the Hon’ble forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
10. The R1 called absent and set exparte on 09-7-2014 and R2 also called absent and set exparte on 12-6-2014.
11. The R2 filed a counter denying that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
12. It is submitted that all the averments mentioned in the complaint are false except those that are specifically admitted herein and the complainant is put to strict proof of each and every averment mentioned in the complaint.
13. It is submitted that R2 is the authorized service center of R1. The averments made in para – 1 of the complaint are true. All other averments made in the complaint are denied and false.
14. The facts is that on 19-11-2013 the complainant came with a mobile with complaint that videos not playing properly on that I received the mobile carried out proper servicing and the mobile was handed over to the complainant by rectifying the problem. Thereafter surprisingly complainant sent the legal noticedt. 31-1-2014 to all respondents claiming replacement of mobile or refund of its cost with interest at 24% from the date of its purchase along with compensation ofRs. 30,000/-.
15. I humbly submit that I am only authorized to carry out servicing of R1 manufactured items at Kadapa, sold through various agents such as R3, within the warranty period and on that I get service charges from R1 instead of from customers on production of proof of servicing to R1. My role is limited to this and I am no way responsible to replace the item or refund the cost of it if the item is defective. My role is to rectify the defects arises within warranty period and receive service charges from R1 instead of from customers. On 19-11-2013 I have rectified the defect in said mobile and gave to the complainant, I thereafter to my surprise I received legal notice and now this complaint copy where in I am made party along with R1 and R3 I humbly submit that I am no one to replace or refund the cost of the item, I am only doing servicing to the items within warranty period.
16. I humbly further submit that, under the above said circumstances there is no deficiency of service on my part, I have rectified the defect, when the item was brought to me and handed over the serviced item to the complainant and it is therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint against me in the interest of justice and equity.
17. 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 by him or not?
ii. Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents?
iii. To what relief?
18. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A5 were marked.
19. Point Nos. 1 & 2. As observed from all the above averments and exhibits, it is very clear that under Ex. A1, the complainant had purchased a cell phone from R3 for Rs. 9,700/- on 27-9-2013 and the complainant had given his cell phone at service center i.e. R2 for a defect under Ex. A2, to rectify the defect of videos not playing properly. Within two months the complainant faced the problems with mobile phone and approached R2. Ex. A5 clearly proves that the complainant is a handicapped person. The complainant had issued legal notice 31-01-2014 to all the respondents stating defects in the mobile phone. But there is no response from them. They had not given reply notice to the complainant. Under the above circumstances it is very clear that there is gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents 1 to 3. As the complainant had purchased the mobile phone at Kadapa city and the service station also situated at Kadapa. The R1 is manufacturer of the mobile phones. The respondents 1, 2 & 3 are responsible for the defects in the mobile phone. Under the circumstances the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him and there is deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the respondents. The respondents are liable to compensate the complainant.
20. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 9,700/- (Rupees nine thousand seven hundred only) the cost of the mobile phone, (after taking back the defective mobile phone) from the complainant, pay Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony (Rupees five thousand only) and pay Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards cost of the complaint to the complainant, within 45 days of date of receipt of orders.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 23rd August 2014
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of Nakshtra Mobiles cah bill receipt Rs. 9,700/- dt. 27-9-2013.
Ex. A2 P/c of servicing receipt No. 4744, dt. 19-11-2013 issued by the R2.
Ex. A3 O/c of legal notice dt. 31-01-2014 issued by the complainant to the
respondents.
Ex. A4 Three postal receipts dt. 31-01-2014 along with two
acknowledgement cards.
Ex. A5 P/c of disability / P.H. Certificate of the complainant.
Exhibits marked for Respondents: - NIL
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
Copy to :-
1. Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for complainant.
2. Micromax Informatics Ltd., Rep. by its Managing
Director, 21/14A, Phase-II, Naraina Industrial Area,
Delhi – 110028.
3. Vijaya Lakshmi Communications, Rep. by its
Manager, Authorized Service Centre to Micromax,
4/781, Sivalingam Street, Nagendra Prasad Hospital,
Nagarajupet, Kadapa – 516 002.
4. Nakshatra Mobils, Rep. by its Proprietor,
Authorized Dealer of Micromax, 4/723-16,
Janatha Complex, Beside Bata Show Room,
Near Old Bus stand, Nagarajupet, Kadapa city – 516 001
B.V.P.
