Orissa

Kendujhar

CC/54/2015

Biswajit Pothal - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Mobile World - Opp.Party(s)

26 May 2016

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KENDUJHAR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 54 OF 2015

    Biswajit Pothal,

    S/o: Sukadev Pothal,

    At/P.O: Bhandaridiha,

    Dist: Keonjhar-758025                          ……………………….Complainant

                       Vrs.

1. Mobile World,

    Mobile Sales, Service,

    All types of accessories & spare parts,

    At: Mining Road, Near Ram Mandir,

    P.O/Dist: Keonjhar-758001

2. Mobile Station,

    In front of Kanara Bank, Bank Street,

    Jajpur Road, Jajpur-755019

3. Micromax House,

    90b, Gurgaon, Sector-18,

    Gurgaon-122015                                   …………………………Op. Parties

 

PRESENT: SHRI A.K. PUROHIT, PRESIDENT

                 SRI S.C. SAHOO, MEMBER

Advocate for the Complainant: Self

Advocate for OP1: Sri S.S. Panda & Associates

Advocate for OP2: Sri Goutam Naik & Associates

Advocate for OP3: Sri P.K. Sahu & Associates

____________________________________________________________________________________________________  

Date of Hearing: 4.5.2016                                                                                                                      Date of Order: 26.5.2016

SRI S.C. SAHOO, MEMBER

1. The case of the complainant is that, he had purchased a Micromax mobile handset vide model No. MICROMAX A310 for a consideration of Rs. 16,900/- on dated 23.11.2014 from the O.P.No.1. The complainant alleges that after use of 9 months within the warranty period the said mobile hand set become defective and the touch screen of the handset was not working. To this the complainant produces the same before the O.P.No.2 for repair. But the complainant did not receive any information either from the service center i.e. O.P.No.2 regarding the service of the mobile hand set till date and hence lastly the complainant asked to the O.P.No.1 for refund of money/ price of the mobile set but he was not provided with any service nor returned the price of the product. Hence this complaint,

2. The O.P1 & 2 have appeared and OP2 filed his written version. But the OP3 was set ex-parte on 1.2.16 but later on appeared through his engaged counsel along with set-aside petition which was not taken into consideration due to his absence and OP1 & OP3 are set ex-parte.

 3. Contesting parties through their engaged counsels proceeded with the hearing of the case.  After receipt of the mobile handset from the complainant on dated 07.8.2015 to the Micromax Servicing Center, Jajpur on the same date along with a job sheet bearing No.EO/0/45-0815-18611224 dt.7.8.2015. The O.P.2 averred that although the repair work has already been completed the complainant did not coming to receive back his mobile handset. The O.P.No.2 denied the complainant’s allegation and claims that he has provided service and hence the case is liable to be dismissed.

4. Heard the contesting parties. The complainant submitted that, since the mobile handset was found defective from the very beginning and was not repairable for a long period there must be manufacturing defects and since the product is warranted for a period of one year the O.Ps are liable to refund the price. On the other hand the learned advocate for the O.P.No.2 submitted that on the date of receipt of the mobile handset the O.P.2 immediately took step for its repair and send it to the servicing center and hence the O.P.2 provided service. The further argument of the complainant is that, the warranty is provided by the manufacturer and the O.P.1 is only a dealer and hence it is the manufacturer as well as the dealer who are liable for the defect in the handset.

5. Perused the material available on record. Perused the bill issued by the Mobile World (O.P.1) vide Sl.No.1556 dated 23.11.2014. It is evident from this document that the complainant had purchased a MICROMAX A310 model mobile handset from the O.P.1 for a consideration of Rs.16,900/-. This fact has also not denied by the OPs.  It is seen from the warranty statement filed by the complainant that, the manufacturer had given warranty to the product to be free from defects in material and workmanship, and the warranty covers twelve months for mobile handset and six months for accessories. It is also an admitted fact that, the mobile handset of the complainant was found defective and the same was handed over to the O.P.2 on dated 07.8.2015 vide the said job sheet. Therefore the mobile handset was found defective within 9 months of its purchase. Perused the job sheet filed by the Complainant. It is in the name of Biswajit Pothal. During course of argument the complainant submitted that since the mobile hand set was sent to the service center through the O.P.1 the name of his representative was mentioned in the job sheet. To this submission the O.P.2 has not produced any believable evidence either the affidavit evidence of the O.P.2 or the affidavit of OP3. Therefore in the absence of believable evidence it is doubtful whether the Job Sheet filed by the complainant is relating to the complainant’s handset or not. The OPs have also not produced any evidence to show that after repair the handset is in working condition. With this evidence available on record it is believed that, the handset is not free from defects and there is manufacturing defects in the handset.

6. Coming to the point of liability, the consumer has direct touch with the dealer i.e. OP1 and not with the manufacturer i.e. OP3. The dealer is dealing with the consumer for the manufacturer of the product/ goods. Therefore the manufacturer and the dealer both are jointly and severally liable for the deficiency of service and will be saddled with cost and compensation.

7. With these discussion and material available on record, in our opinion, refund of price of the defective mobile handset will meet the ends of justice as submitted by the complainant.

Hence Order

    The OPs are directed to refund the price of the complainant’s mobile handset, i.e. Rs. 16,900/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.1000/- to the complainant towards cost & compensation within the same period failing which the entire amount of Rs.17,900/- will carry an interest @ 10% per annum till realization.

Accordingly the case of the complainant is disposed of.       

     Accordingly the Case is disposed of.

 

 

                                                                                                                     I agree                                                                                  

        (Sri S.C. Sahoo)                                                                         (Sri A.K. Purohit)

              Member                                                                                      President                               

    D.C.D.R.F. Keonjhar                                                                  D.C.D.R.F. Keonjhar

 

 

                                                                           Dictated & Corrected by me

                                                                                     (Sri S.C. Sahoo)                                                                                                  .

                                                                        Member, D.C.D.R.F. Keonjhar