BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 30th NOVEMBER 2015
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 508/2014
(Admitted on 30.12.2014)
Karthik Rohith alias Karthik U
Door No. 25-24-1720/11(2),
‘Aadimaye Anugraha House,
Near Janardhana Bhajana Mandir,
3rd Cross Road,
Jeppu Kudpady, Kankanady Post,
MANGALORE-575002. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Complainant: In person)
VERSUS
1. The Authorised Signatory,
Micromax Informatics Ltd.,
21/14A, Phase-II Naraina Industrial Area,
Delhi-110 028.
2. The Customer care officer,
Micromax Informatics Ltd.,
21/14A, Phase-II, Naraina Industrial Area,
Delhi-110 028.
3. the Authorised Signatory,
Planet G
Rajendra Towers, Opp: Syndicate Bank,
Kulur Ferry Road, Alake,
Mangalore -575 003. ……OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 : Ex-parte)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY
- 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging defect in hand set as against the opposite parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant purchased hand set Micromax A76 on 10.10.2013 by paying price of Rs. 8,500/- in cash.
The complainant stated that, the hand set started to face problems, within 10 days from the date of purchase like poor connectivity, called dropping, during conversation, inability to send massages. Thereafter, the complainant approached the service center and handed over the hand set even after second service the problems continued. The hand set taken to service center for the 3rd time in spite the problem continued. It is stated that, the hand set is not upto the quality and has manufacturing defect. Therefore, the above complaint filed U/sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as the act) seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs. 8,500/- along with interest and compensation and cost of the proceedings.
II. 1. Version notice served to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 by R.P.A.D receiving version notice neither appeared nor contested the case before this FORA, Hence we have proceeded ex-parte as against the opposite party No. 1 to 3. The acknowledgment marked as court Document No. 1 & 2.
III. 1. In support of the complaint, Karthik Rohith Alias Karthik U. (CW1) the Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex. C1 to C13. The defective hand set marked as MO-1. Opposite Parties ex-parte.
In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the complainant proves that the (MICROMAX A76) hand set purchased on 10.10.2013 from the opposite parties found to be defective?-
- Whether the complainant proves that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No. (i) and (ii): Affirmative
Point No. (iii) and (iv). As per the final order.
IV. 1. POINTS No. (i) TO (iv) : The complainant in order to substantiate the averments made in the complaint filed affidavit supported by documents i.e. Ex c-1 to C-13. Wherein the Ex C1 is the purchase invoice dated 10.10.2013 and Ex C2 to C 12 are communications between the parties and Ex C13 job card issued by the opposite party and MO 1 is the defective hand set produced before the FORA reveals that, the hand set purchased by the complainant found defect within the warranty period. It shows the short coming in the quality. The complainant deprived of using the hand set in-spite of paying Rs. 8,500/- to the hand set. The opposite party being manufacturer and the dealers or required to maintain the standard, quality under any law for the time being in force or as is claimed by the trader in any manner what so ever in relation to any goods. But in the instant case the opposite party in spite of receiving version notice not appeared nor represented the case, the entire evidence placed by the complainant not contradicted nor controverted by the opposite party. The unrebutted evidence requires no proof. Therefore, we hold that, the hand set purchased by the complainant has some defect and the same has been not rectified by the opposite party nor replaced the hand set shows gross negligence on the part of the opposite parties. For the reasons stated herein above we hold that, since the hand set found defect within the warranty period, we direct the opposite parties to refund the amount by taking back the defective hand set i.e. MO-1 produced before the FORA. And also the opposite parties are liable to pay adequate damages along with cost of the proceedings.
Generally, if the mobile handset has manufacturing defect is to be borne by the manufacturer. That would not mean that, the dealer is absolved from joint and several liabilities. As we know, the manufacturer not deals with the customers directly. Dealer having received the amount, undertaken free service and rectify defect during the warranty do not escape liability towards the manufacturing defect found in the mobile handset. As we know, the contract through dealer/service provider, privity of contract is with them. To ensure execution expeditiously and immediately, if necessary by making the payment/replacement to the complainant initially and then it will be for the dealer to claim reimbursement from the manufacturer. Therefore, the dealer and the manufacturer both are jointly and severally liable for the defects found in the mobile hand set in this case.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, we hold that, the Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally shall refund the cost of the mobile handset Rs. 8,500/- by retaining the defective handset and also pay of Rs. 10,000/- as damages to the complainant for the inconvenience and harassment caused. Further pay Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally shall pay the complainant an amount of ₹ 8,500/ by retaining the defective hand set and also pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and also pay Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In case of failure to pay the above mentioned amount within the stipulated time, the Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 are directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above said total amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 7 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of NOVEMBER 2015)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW-1 : Karthik Rohith Alias Karthik U–Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex. C1 : Copy of the purchase Invoice dated 10.10.2013
(Proof of purchase)
Ex. C2 : Copy of Letter 1 dated 17 Feb 2014, to top officials
of Micromax (Soft copy sent).
Ex. C3 : Copy of Letter 2 dated 03 Mar 2014, to the
customer care section of Micromax (Soft copy sent)
Ex. C4 : Copy of Letter 3 dated 04 Mar-2014, to the vendor
(hard copy sent via registered acknowledgment)
Ex. C5 : Copy of Letter 4 dated 13 Mar 2014, to the
customer care section of Micromax (Soft copy sent).
Ex. C6 : Copy of letter 5 dated 24 Apr 2014, to the vendor
(hard copy sent via registered acknowledgment)
Ex. C7 : Copy of letter 6 dated 24.Apr 2014, to the
customer care section of Micromax (hard copy sent via registered acknowledgment)
Ex. C8 : Copy of Letter 7 dated 23 May 2014, to the
customer care section of Micromax (hard copy sent via registered acknowledgment)
Ex. C9 : Copy of Letter 8 dated 22 Jun 2014, to the
customer care section of Micromax (Soft copy sent)
Ex. C10: Copy of Letter 9 dated 20 Dec 2014, to the vendor (soft copy sent)
Ex. C11: Copy of reply 1 dated 04 Mar 2014, from customer care section of Micromax (via email)
Ex. C12: Copy of Reply 2 dated 13 Mar 2014, from customer care section of Micromax (Via email)
Ex. C13: Copy of Jobsheet received from Authorised service centre of Micromax dated 21 Nov 2013 (Proof of Handset being serviced)
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
- Nil -
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
- Nil -
Dated: 30.11.2015. PRESIDENT
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties No. 1 to 3 jointly and severally shall pay the complainant an amount of ₹ 8,500/ by retaining the defective hand set and also pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and also pay Rs. 3,000/- as litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
In case of failure to pay the above mentioned amount within the stipulated time, the Opposite Party No. 1 to 3 are directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above said total amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of NOVEMBER 2015)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore. Mangalore.
