Orissa

Kendujhar

CC/42/2016

S.M. Manisha - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. The Proprietor, Mobile World - Opp.Party(s)

Sri A.C. Sahoo & Sri G.N. Jena

10 Feb 2017

ORDER

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

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 42 OF 2016         

                       S.M. Manisha, aged about 20 years,

                       D/o: Sarat Chandra Moharana,

                       C/o: Sarat Kumar Moharana,

                       At: Laxminarayanpur,

                       P.O: Keonjhar Bazar, P.S: Town,

                       Dist: Keonjhar…………………………………………………………………Complainant

                                                    Vrs.

                   1. The Proprietor, Mobile World,

                       At: Mining Road, Near Ram Mandir,

                       P.O: Keonjhargarh,

                       Dist: Keonjhar- 758001(Odisha)

                   2. Micromax Informatics Ltd.

                       Micromax House, 90-A, Sector-18,

                       Gurugaon, Pin-122015

                   3. Prop. Micromax Care,

                       DIGI Care, At: Hotel Srikrishna Building,

                       Hatiatangar, N.H.49, P.O: Keonjhargarh,

                       Dist: Keonjhar-758001 (Odisha)……………………………………………....Op. Parties

 

PRESENT: SHRI PURUSHOTTAM SAMANTARA, PRESIDENT

                  SMT. B. GIRI, MEMBER (W)

                 Advocate for Complainant: Sri A.C. Sahoo & Sri G.N. Jena

                 Advocate for OP1: Sri S.K. Mahanta & Associates

                 Advocate for OP2: None

                 Advocate for OP3: Set exparte

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Date of Filing: 19.9.2016                                                                                                                     Date of Order: 10.2.2017  

SHRI PURUSHOTTAM SAMANTARA, PRESIDENT

1. Succinctly put, the complainant averred that purchased a Micromax A120 Model mobile handset from Mobile World, Mining Road, Keonjhar against a consideration Rs.7,200/-(Seven thousand two hundred) on dt.12^th Aug. 2015.

2. The complainant also stated, the handset carries, one year warranty from date of purchase.

3. On dt.27.7.2016, it is averred, the handset became non functional and complete dead. As per the dealer’s advice, approached the authorized service center and the Job sheet was issued on dt.29.7.2016, with a promise to deliver within a week. 

4. It is also stated, the service till the date is too deferred & callous. Deferring dates after dates, being aggrieved sent pleader’s notice, but the OP did not bother to any respond.

5. Under the circumstance, the complainant suffered loss, sustained mental agony and find just and proper to institute the case, for the deficiency committed in under the Consumer Protection Provisions, prayed to replace the handset or make refund justifiably as deemed fit under the law.

6. The complainant relied on service Job sheet, bill, warranty card, receipts and pleader’s notice.

7. In pursuance to notice, the OP1 appeared and made version admittedly the OP1 has responded suitably to the pleader’s notice on 27^th Aug. 2016. The retail shop carries business in different brands of mobile. Receives the defective mobile set for repair and settlement of claim.

8. And contended, this OP is not responsible to render service on the defective set as the service center & company are entitled to shoulder the change of defect leveled against.      

9. Averred, in the instant case, this OP advised to handover the Mobile handset at “Digi Care” Keonjhar, the authorized service center, hence no way liable for replacement or refund.  

10. Further added, the sold mobile set is neither old or defect one at the time of sales, the allegation are imaginary and created for unjust enrichment in concocted way. Submitted the petition is liable to be rejected with cost.

11. Heard the complainant and learned counsels. Perused the relevant documents on record.

12. The submission of the complainant speaks that the consideration of Rs.7200/- has been paid against bill No.8801, dt.12.8.2015 issued by Mobile World. Same is neither disputed nor contended. The bill reflects transaction is genuine so thereof the complainant is a bonafide consumer. On the issue of jurisdiction, limitation and cause of action, no sufferance found to note, thus the case is maintainable and tenable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

13. Perused the job sheet dt.29.7.2016, which admits that Model No. A120 (Mcromax) is deposited at Micromax Care titled as “DIGI CARE” with remarks of “SET DEAD” with approximate estimate of Rs.600/- to be charged. In rectification of same and delivery no record adduced on evidence or corroboration to pleadings. That service is rendered.    

14. The enclosed photocopy of “Warranty Card” on record of which “clauses 8” reads:-

Micromax obligation under this warranty/ shall be limited to repair or providing replacement of parts only. The maximum claim entertained by Micromax will be subject to Maximum Retail Price of the handset purchased or the purchase price, whichever is lower.

(i) The warranty is given only to the original purchaser of the product.

(ii) The warranty will be applicable for twelve months from the date of original purchase for mobile handset and six months for accessories.

(iii) The handset purchased on dt.12.8.2015. The defect surfaced on 29.7.2016, means the handset is not enough precisionly passed for which the manufacturing defect sustained and became dead. The rectification not ensured and even any rectification within the warranty did not summon any charges. Any conditional warranty is no more hundred percent approved under the laws of contract and sale, which against the provisions as laid down under the prevalent laws.

15. Above all, the OP1 is not sensitive to pleader notice. So gross callous in non-rendering service is amply substantive, proved and established.

16. We find the other OPs are hand in glove in between them in non-representing the case. The non-representation is collusive act willful default in non-rendering statutory obligation as they are given sufficient opportunities and notice is sufficient Under Sub-section 4 of Section (28)A of C.P. Act. Thus committed deficiency and liable to pay jointly and severally to the petitioner without any demur.     

        In view of the above made discussion, we find no service rendered in an admitted defect handset during warranty period is a breach of promise to the expressed term.

Our same view is fortified with the decision, we prefer to place reliance:-

 “It is the duty of manufacturer/ dealer to repair defects in a product during warranty period and within a reasonable time”- Krishna Kumar Sahu Vs Manager, Jai Shri Electronics & Ors: - 2010(1) CRR 149, thus liable to pay.

O R D E R

 The OPs are hereby directed to replace the handset in new of same model, specification, brand & cost within 30 days of this Order, in alternate-      

        We hereby direct to the OPs to pay the petitioner in jointly and severally a sum of Rs.7,200/-(Seven thousand two hundred) towards the purchase value along with a sum of Rs.800/-(Eight hundred) towards the loss, harassment & mental agony sustained, as compensation inclusive of cost within 30 days of this Order, failing @ 6% interest per annum will be accrued on the principal till realization.

          Copy of the Order be made available to the parties as per rule.

          File be consigned to record room.

          Pronounced, 10^th February 2017.

                                                                                                                                             

                       I agree                                                                   

          (Smt. B. Giri)                                                                                                      (Shri Purushottam Samantara)                                                              

          Member (W)                                                                                                                         President                                                           

      DCDRF, Keonjhar                                                                                                            DCDRF, Keonjhar                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                              

                                                                                Dictated & Corrected by me

                                                                              (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

                                                                                             (President)                                                          

                                                                                        DCDRF, Keonjhar